HOW PALIN SHOULD RESPOND TO FOREIGN POLICY’S “20 QUESTIONS” TEST

The blog at Foreign Policy has twenty questions that the left believes will “expose” America’s Hockey Mom, Governor Sarah Palin.

They claim that these friendly little torpedoes establish (or disestablish) the bona fides of a worthy second in command . . .ignoring of course the artifice of a president actually having to make foreign policy decisions in seconds from memory and without a room-full of professional advisors, 535 clamoring "experts" on Capitol Hill, shelves of erudite briefing books, established protocols and precedents.

So how should Palin respond?

She studied Political Science in college, so she’s undoubtedly familiar with soft science dissembling on exams. But here’s how Truth With Speedzzter would tell her to respond.

1. In a broad and long-term sense, would you have responded differently to the attacks of 9/11?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The fact is that we are left with the responses we already have. Monday morning quarterbacking does no good in determining how we ought to go forward.

Certainly we must redouble our efforts to hunt down Osama Bin Ladin and his henchmen. And we’ve got to neutralize Osama’s terror organization. We must remain vigilant in preempting additional terrorist threats from radical extremist. We should continue to improve border and port security. We need to take the fight to the terrorists in places such as Afghanistan. We’ve got to finish the job in Iraq.

2. Is Iraq a democracy?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Iraq has made huge strides in meeting many of the benchmarks on the road to democracy. Is it perfect. Of course not. Is it a fully Western-style democracy? No. However, if we follow the cut and run policy of Mr. Obama, any hope of Iraq becoming democratic would collapse, chaos and innocent bloodshed would escalate, and Iraq would drift into Iran’s radical orbit. We don’t need to stay in Iraq forever, but we must stay until Iraq is fully self-sufficient and self-governing.

3. What's the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: What’s the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant?

The theologians could point to a lot of differences. From our point of view – in practice – the Shia have often been more fundamentalist and the Sunni more amenable to Western ideas. But Sadam Hussein was technically a Sunni – and he was as violent and repressive as any of the Shia radicals in the Islamic world.

Regardless of the theological differences, we must encourage all strains of Islam to give up jihad, violence and terrorism. And we’ve got to support responsible elements in the global war on terror.

4. What is your preferred plan for peace between Israel and Palestine? A two state solution? What about Jerusalem?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Obviously we’d prefer that they not fight. But this conflict has been raging almost from the ancient days of Ishmael and Isaac. The U.S. cannot impose peace on these factions.

Over the past three decades, the U.S. has helped reduce tensions by getting the sides to talk. But the active stakeholders for peace are the nations of the Mid-East.

We cannot waiver in our support for our strategic ally Israel. Any solution which compromises the territorial integrity and defensive capabilities of Israel is no solution at all.

The Palestinians must renounce violence and act as if they accept Israel’s inherent right to exist.

Syria and Jordan have a responsibility to the world community to diffuse tensions and to avoid actions which facilitate the conflict.

Jerusalem is a truly international city. It should not be partitioned or abused as some sort of bargaining chip or hostage to extremist ideologies. It must remain open to Moslems, Jews and Christians.

5. How do you feel about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit to Syria? Do you believe the United States should negotiate with leaders like President Bashar al-Assad?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Mr. Sarkozy has the responsibility for determining his nation’s foreign policy. I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on where he chooses to visit.

The U.S., of course, should have appropriate diplomatic relations with responsible members of the international community.

I’m not certain what you mean, though, by “negotiate.” If you’re suggesting that we should compromise on basic American principles and national interests or if we should create propaganda opportunities for regimes that are linked to support for terrorism, the only negotiations that are appropriate are warnings and cautions.

6. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives in China and India. Who are those countries' leaders?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: This is one of those sound-bite “gotcha questions” that you guys in the media love.

[If Palin really wanted to tweak the media and the left, she’d pull out a note card, her Blackberry or a book]

Anybody can look this kind of stuff up on the Internet or in the World Almanac.

The communist party’s politburo still runs the People’s Republic of China. And you’d think that Mao Zedong was still in power from all the photos of him we saw during the Olympics. But the current head of state is [make ‘em wait for it] Hu Jintao.

The president of India is Pratibha Patil. She’s another one of those who has helped shatter the glass ceiling as I understand it.

7. Do you support the U.S.- India Civil Nuclear Agreement, which would lift restrictions on sales of nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country which hasn't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: India is, of course, a valued friend of the U.S.

India’s peaceful development of nuclear power would be a great humanitarian benefit to the people of that region. The current non-proliferation regime is riddled with holes and cheaters. The development of Iran’s nuclear capability is an example of this.

As Ronald Reagan said, we’ve got to “trust but verify.” And that’s what we must always do in the trade of sensitive technology. A piece of paper is no substitute for active involvement. We’ve got to work closely with the Indian government to encourage responsible, peaceful nuclear development. And we’ve got to aggressively oppose nuclear proliferation with diplomatic, economic and even military pressure as we uncover it.

8. Other than more drilling, what steps do you suggest the U.S. take in order to move toward energy independence? Do you believe more investment is needed in alternative energy research? If so, how would you recommend this funding be allocated?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: [Let Palin be Palin here. Palin doesn’t need any help on energy issues, but she should refer the viewers to the McCain-Palin website. And she should attack the unrealistic assumptions of Obama’s energy plan – this is stump speech “red meat” time]

9. How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States' growing economic interdependence with that country?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: While China has made breathtaking economic progress, its human rights record is abysmal. China’s record on oppressing religious freedom and political dissent is simply horrible. The Olympics have shown that the Chinese government is slowly moving toward a more openness and is increasingly responsive to international concerns.

This movement isn’t fast enough. But we’ve got the beginnings of a foundation to build on.

As China develops economically, pressures for reform from within will increase. As the fall of the Soviet Union proved, Communism is a flawed system that cannot sustain itself indefinitely. One of our tasks is to identify the opportunities to reinforce, encourage and support those who are struggling from the inside to bring China’s human rights policies into the Twenty-First Century.

Obviously, we live in a global economy and where we exert pressure on repressive regimes over questions of basic human rights must be measured carefully and realistically. While we cannot realistically “boycott” China over human rights issues, we can use our diplomatic options to strongly encourage China to enact reforms. And we can look at questions such as most favored nation trade status and restrictions on technological transfers, and disincentives to additional investment as potential points of leverage on human rights issues.

10. What's more important: securing Russia's cooperation on nuclear proliferation and Iran, or supporting Georgia's NATO bid? If Vladimir Putin called you on the phone and said, "It's one or the other," what would you tell him?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: That’s a false dichotomy. Both are important. I’m not going to answer a hypothetical question about what Mr. Putin may or may not do. But with all due respect, cannot allow any world leader to blackmail us into something that is against our interests.

11. Critique the foreign policy of the last administration. Name its single greatest success, and its most critical failure.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The answer to both questions is the same – the War on Terror. There have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11. America has stopped plenty of terrorist attempts. That’s not just the Bush Administration, but all levels of government working together. [insert Alaska vignette here].

But we’ve still not captured Osama Bin Ladin. That’s unacceptable. The job is not finished in Iraq or Afghanistan. John McCain fought virtually the entire Washington establishment for the surge in Iraq. John McCain as president will fight hard to bring the War on Terror to a strong and successful conclusion.

12. What do you think will be the most defining foreign-policy issue in the next five years?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Such prognostications are generally unreliable.

There are many international pressures that will define the next five years. The battle against terrorism . . . energy . . . international trade and the economy . . . the continuing emergence of the Far East as an economic powerhouse.

Energy will likely be at the center of America’s national interests over the next five years [insert stump speech energy material here]

13. What role should the United States play in the global effort to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? Should it support contraception, or abstinence only?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: HIV/AIDS is a difficult problem with a lot of local variations. For example, in some African cultures, AIDS is being spread through barbaric tribal practices and pedophilia. No amount of contraception subsidies will counteract this. Much of the global education effort should be aimed at dissuading populations at risk from engaging in irresponsible practices that are known to increase risk of contracting the disease.

The first responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect our own population from this terrible scourge. Part of that effort is to do our part to stem the epidemic overseas. One-size-fits-all international solutions don’t work. We’ve got to work with local leaders to identify areas where it is in the vital national interest of the U.S. to assist and cooperate. But the front lines of the battle will be comprised of the indigenous and local leadership and their creativity in adapting solutions to fit local problems and realities.

14. You've said that the federal government spends too much money. What, in your view, is the appropriate level of spending as a percentage of GDP?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Percentage of GDP is an “inside baseball” statistic that only has meaning to some economists and policy wonks.

The real answer is that the federal government should recognize that every dollar it spends is a hard-earned dollar that it has taken from someone in taxes, and that spending of these taxpayer dollars should be at the lowest feasible level to fund the essential functions and responsibilities of the federal government. And the federal government shouldn’t tax or spend a dime more than is absolutely necessary.

We’ve got to go through our bloated federal spending line-by-line and cut out waste, luxuries and items that are not really the responsibility of the federal government. I’ve had executive experience in governing under a budget. In Alaska [insert vignettes about how Palin is a “pitbull with lipstick” on wasteful spending.]

On the other hand, Mr. Obama’s tax-and-spend liberal plans will bloat the budget by more than one trillion dollars. He will try to federalize our health care system. He will expand the bureaucracy. He will micromanage our energy development. He will further involve Washington in areas that ought to be decided and addressed locally. He will waste money we don’t have rewarding special interests that supported his campaign, such as the teachers unions. He will raise taxes, but not enough to cover his spending plans, so the national debt and deficit will balloon. That amounts to a tax increase on future generations.

15. You're an advocate of reducing environmental restrictions on drilling. How much oil needs to be found in the United States before the country achieves energy independence?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the world oil economy that’s rapidly expanding, every bit helps lower prices and increase supplies. But the question has the wrong focus because oil isn’t the only variable in energy independence. [insert energy stump speech here]

16. What are your picks for the three most enlightening books written on foreign policy in the last five years?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: I don’t do book reviews for a living. There’s too many fish to catch, too many moose to hunt, and too many hockey games to watch.

Seriously, too many of the big selling foreign policy books have been nothing more than rants against President Bush’s war plan or calls for an unconstitutional internationalism. [Palin could insert her list here, but here’s a few suggestions that will enrage the left and enthrall the base

America Alone by Mark Steyn
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
Unstoppable Global Warming , by S. Fred Singer]

17. Who among the world's leaders can be listed as the top three friends of the United States and why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: That’s not a fair question to a number of America’s allies.

Certainly all of the members of the Iraq War coalition have taken courageous stands in the War on Terror. A good example of that is Tony Blair. He’s gone now, but he led the U.K. effectively in the War on Terror. Former Australian prime minister John Howard also was a good friend of the U.S. We’ve recently seen positive developments in France with Mr. Sarkozy and in Germany with Ms. Merkel.

But it’s just not fair to single out three of America’s friends for such a silly list.

18. In your opinion, which U.S. president was the most successful world leader and why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Several American presidents have lead strongly on the World Stage. Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, James K. Polk. As an Alaskan, I’m of course somewhat fond of Andrew Johnson, because if it wasn’t for his purchase of Alaska, Alaskans might be speaking Russian today.

Several Twentieth Century presidents made real change through tough foreign policy decisions. President Nixon’s outreach to China was undoubtedly historic. George H.W. Bush assembled a great coalition to beat back Saddam Hussein’s aggression in Kuwait.

But in my lifetime, one president stands out – Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan refused to back down from bedrock American principles, even when ridiculed by the left. He stood toe-to-toe with the Soviet leaders and refused to blink. He lead us to victory in the Cold War, which ultimately reduced global tensions and the nuclear threat. He lead us to rebuild our military capability and helped restore America’s stature in the world.

19. Which U.S. political thinkers, writers, and politicians would you enlist to advise you on matters of foreign policy and why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: That’s a better question for John McCain. He’s the one running for president.

It’s been my experience that you get so much volunteered advice from so many quarters that you don’t have to “enlist” anyone special. We need to hear a variety of voices from both parties and outside of the U.S. John McCain has pledged to build a cabinet that’s inclusive.

And even if I don’t always agree with a position, I’ll listen to it. But naming names of particular people who will advise me after the election is presumptuous and not something I’m going to do.

20. Who is the first world leader you'd like to meet with and why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: There are many leaders that I’d like to meet with. The order would be dictated by the situation. Obviously, we’d need to concentrate on leaders involved in hot spots in the War on Terror, energy and the world economy.

That aside, for strictly selfish reasons, I’d like to sit down with Angela Merkel because she’s a strong, able woman that I’m sure would have a lot of helpful insights on a variety of topics we’d have in common.

OBAMA & BIDEN: THE “DREAM SMASHERS”

In a couple of months (barring a reprise of the “Sore-Loserman” sour grapes litigation of 2000) we will know which presidential nominee has the uncertain fate of U.S Constitution, Detroit's automakers, and our shrinking liberties [automotive and otherwise] in his hands.

The choice is about as stark as any now possible in the American two-party system.

On one hand, is Barack Obama and his old, plagiarizing, inside-Washington side kick Joe Biden. On the other is the battle-tested maverick John McCain and the refreshing "real world" conservative supermom Sarah Palin.

Obama is riding in as this year’s designated “progressive” in a cult of personality which is wholly out of proportion to anything he’s ever accomplished anywhere in his life.

His quest for office isn’t a mere campaign. It’s a “movement.” [insert your own “movement” joke here]

He claims to be some sort of post-partisan agent of “change.”

(Of course getting hit by a bus would be a "change" for most of us . . . "Change" isn't necessarily a good thing)

But, signing on to a couple of minor bills is hardly the record of a legendary bipartisan legislative leader.

[But then he did request nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in earmarks . . . and actually snagged almost a quarter-billion for Sweet Home Chicago from the Pelosi-Reid Congress. Not too shabby for a “boss” trained in the ways of Chicago machine politics . . . and who has spent much of his Senate career out-of-town running for president.]

At least he didn’t merely ad to his impressive and courageous total of “present” votes, though.

And other than running his mouth (almost non-stop) in a protracted campaign for the presidency, what has Obama . . . ever actually run?

Oh! He did find a few typos on the liberal “Haaa-vard” Law Review . . . .

And there’s that resume bulking “community organizer” job . . . .

“ But he's never run a city, never run a state, never run a business.
He's never had to lead people in crisis.This is not a personal attack....it's a statement of fact - Barack Obama has never led anything.
Nothing. Nada.” – Rudolph Giuliani

Perhaps a fitting sobriquet would be “Zerobama” (as in ZERO EXPERIENCE).

And as for being a “community organizer” . . . Speedzzter’s been to south Chicago . . . and it doesn’t look much like he finished the job . . . .

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.” Gov. Sarah Palin

Lack of experience aside, the motley and freakish collection of special interests, perpetual victims, and “nutroots” activists that make up the Democrat party’s primary voters apparently saw Obama as better able to recover the imaginary “Camelot” of past Democratic eras than that certain shrill, female, coat-tail-riding proxy for Bill Clinton known as Hillary.

Obama is one of the greatest beneficiaries of mindless, kneejerk "affirmative action" racial identity politics in American history.

Had he not been a glib and telegenic African-American . . ., he would not be anywhere near the U.S. Presidency at this point in his fledgling political career. However, he has attracted about 90% of the primary votes cast by those in the Democrat party who believe that the color of one’s skin and not the content of one’s character is the relevant factor in selecting a president.

A candidate's race, of course, ought to have absolutely no role in the selection of any elected or appointed leader. However, the liberal fixation on the demographic composition of the GOP convention, for example, is a strong indicator that Democrat leaders simply do not agree with this core American principle. Obama's dramatic ascendency sans any real qualifications is another.

Obama’s other major base of support comes from those who are obsessed with losing the war in Iraq.

Anyone with a memory of more than a couple of seconds is aware that Obama has run consistently hard for defeat and surrender in Iraq and has rhetorically opposed anything that would “escalate” our chances to win.

He won’t even admit he was stone-cold wrong on the troop surge.

Notwithstanding years of demoralizing, hyper-partisan and often misleading rhetoric against the Iraq War, some claim Obama only voted once to defund it and only because his hand was forced by the wily GOP as a procedural matter. However, the fact that he was too busy campaigning to show up for votes does not diffuse the valid observations of Joe Lieberman about “Zerobama’s” gelding positions on winning at the major beachhead in the War Against Radical Islamofascism.

When “Zerobama” did show up, he amassed the most liberal voting record of any currently sitting U.S. Senator.

Still, while some anticipate Obama as some sort of a new age liberal (a/k/a “progressive”) who can sell (without any partisan rancor whatsoever in a new, imaginary post-partisan age) a sharply divided country on all of the old, big government schemes and scams on the shelf since the days of LBJ’s “Great Society, ” others seem to view Obama as some sort of a reincarnation of the almost-moderate Clinton Administration. Balanced budgets and dot.com prosperity are just around the corner . . . .

Of course all of that assumes a highly revisionist view of the Bill Clinton era.
For example, the federal budget was balanced (on paper) despite Clinton and AFTER the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress. It was a direct result of the Democrat losses in the 2004 mid-term elections and of the GOP’s “Contract With America.” (Admittedly, once Newt Gingrich was gone and Tom Delay took over, the GOP Congress lost its discipline on spending) The budget was balanced, in part, by rejecting the very sorts of big government initiatives and redistributionist handouts "Zerobama" favors (i.e. federalizing/socializing the health care system, soaking small business owners and small investors with a huge tax increase)

Obama-ism seeks to undo the bulk of the favorable economic policies which survived the Clinton era and replace them with disincentives to investment, protectionist trade restrictions, vast and expensive regulations on commercial activity and energy production/usage.

The salient lesson from the 2006 election has been lost on young Zero as well. A fair plurality of American voters are tired of wasting billions in federal tax money – which is money extorted by force of law from productive Americans -- on pork-barrel crap like nature trails, Woodstock cultural centers and overpriced bridges with minimal traffic counts.

However, because the Democrat political model is STILL based on Tammany Hall-style inducements to special interests (to which Tom Delay misled the GOP to adopt and George W. Bush failed to police with his veto pen before the 2006 election debacle), real earmark reform still hasn’t occurred.

Obama’s laundry list of “change” proposals suggests he will further balloon federal spending with more “targeted” pork (cash rewards for political loyalty) and expensive new “entitlements” (government-mandated wealth redistribution). It’s a solid lock that a former ACORN “community organizer” is going to be free with doling out the hand-outs that he undoubtedly coveted when he was [organizing] on the south side of Chicago.

“Nobama’s” tax plan is even worse.

It will increase taxes over John McCain’s plan by NINE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS according to the non-partisan Urban Institute.

Zerobama’s plan will increase marginal rates by nearly 15% on those who already pay over 90% of the revenue from gross federal income taxes. It will increase the rate on corporations by one-third over the McCain’s plan.

Obama’s tax plan will result in a huge tax increase on millions of small businesses, sole proprietorships, family enterprises and individual investors because it fails to preserve the bulk of the 2001 tax cuts. Because these heavy taxpayers simply cannot print additional money to pay more, these Obama tax increases, in a majority of cases, will be passed on through increased prices, reduced investments, reduced consumption and reduced hiring. The corresponding increases in transfer payments and other big government spending will not produce as much of a multiplier effect as leaving this same money in the private sector to begin with.

Obama doesn’t just limit the interference of big government to taxation. For example, Obama has said

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our houses on 72 degrees at all times . . . That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

In other words, Obama’s brand of "progress" portends regulation of almost every area of personal freedom, except of course those areas of sexual morality and dangerous substance abuse which have traditionally been regulated for both didactic purposes and the public good.

Obama is arguably the most dangerous choice for president in recent memory because he is an anti-constitutional, big government socialist who is limp-wristed on national defense, mostly hostile to the fundamental right of armed personal self-defense and private property rights, wholly lacking in understanding of private initiative and entrepreneurial values, openly beholden to scores of liberal special interests, and devoid of the ideological resolve to protect our fragile national sovereignty from being co-opted by international government.

Compared to that, Bill Clinton was just an egotistical opportunist with a bad Southern accent and an overactive libido.

Obama’s hypnotic set-piece propaganda speeches often mention the theme of “enabling dreams.”

Yet Obama and Biden are actually dreamSMASHERS.

If you dream of a Supreme Court that will read the Constitution as written and not make it up as they go, Obama’s anticipated two appointments to the Court will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of a robust individual rights of self-protection and sport through small arms ownership, Obama-Biden’s revival of intrusive gun control will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of hunting, four-wheeling or snowmobiling on public lands, Obama-Biden’s “don’t tread” land management policies will SMASH that dream.
If you dream of a state-by-state political resolution of the “right to life” controversy instead of a Court-imposed, taxpayer-subsidized nationwide abortion industry, Obama-Biden’s judicial appointments and hyper-phobia of common-sense regulations will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of a military that is not weakened by the forced social engineering of the radical homosexual rights movement, Obama-Biden’s policy of open, forced acceptance and subsidy of the “gay agenda” will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of the freedom to maintain the centuries-old traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, Obama-Biden’s refusal to permit a Federal Marriage Amendment will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of the opportunity to build a small business without the crippling parasitic burdens of trial lawyer piracy, intrusive regulations and confiscatory rates of taxation, Obama-Biden’s neo-socialist redistributionist schemes will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of a free market of ideas on the radio, television and internet, Obama-Biden’s return to the discredited and unfair “fairness doctrine” will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of meaningfully increasing domestic gas and oil production and refining capacity and safe and clean nuclear electric power, Obama-Biden’s environmental policies will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of a free market-based health care system, Obama-Biden’s bureaucratic, de facto nationalization of the health care system will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of responsible tort reform and common-sense limits on “jackpot justice” and trial lawyer piracy, Obama-Biden’s judiciary packed with liberal former trial lawyers and refusal to cross the trial lawyers who have funded much of the Democrat party will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of peace with honor in the Middle East and unflinching support of our dear ally Israel, Obama-Biden’s cut-and-run isolationist military strategy will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of the opportunity to compete and trade in the world marketplace, Obama-Biden’s protectionism will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of low income parents having a real choice to move their kids from failing public schools and into the same sorts of private schools that elite Democrat politicians often use, Obama-Biden’s wholesale rejection of vouchers and school choice will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of public schools that don’t circumvent parental and religious teachings on sexual abstinence before marriage and the illegitimacy of homosexual conduct, Obama-Biden’s liberal, “values-neutral, ”graphic “how-to” sex education mandates will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of real border security without amnesty immigration lawbreakers, Obama-Biden’s immigration policy will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of the free exercise of religion in the public square and freedom of public religious expression, Obama-Biden’s packing of the federal judiciary with liberal, ACLU-type haters of religion and hostility to legislative protections will SMASH that dream.

If you believe in the constitutional principle of federalism, Obama-Biden’s massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy and federal role in local issues will SMASH that dream.

If you believe in the principle of free private association for legitimate economic and business matters and the corresponding principle of the freedom not to associate, Obama-Biden’s policy of forced acceptance and subsidy of homosexual and unmarried sexual conduct will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of free market solutions to the “energy crisis,” Obama-Biden’s managed (government controlled) energy economy with draconian limits on greenhouse gas emissions, oil drilling, shale oil production and other artificial limitations will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of an “American Autobahn” someday, or unfettered sport boating, motor racing and sport aviation, Obama-Biden’s draconian energy use policies will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of a summer gas tax holiday to promote tourism and economic growth in a time of high fuel prices, Obama-Biden’s rejection of that proposal will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of more competitive “right to work” opportunities, Obama-Biden’s increased unionization policies will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of the freedom to contract for market-based fringe benefits, Obama-Biden’s unfunded federal mandates for increased fringe benefits will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of common-sense amendments to and reasonable enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Obama-Biden’s demand for increased federal intervention in this area will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of reasonable capital gains taxation, Obama-Biden’s “soak the rich” tax policy and increase in the capital gains tax will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of passing your family business down to your children, Obama-Biden’s “death tax” policy will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of maintaining American sovereignty without interference from international law, Obama-Biden’s penchant for freedom-SMASHING UN initiatives and international treaties will SMASH that dream.

If you dream of a smaller, less intrusive government that lives within its means, Obama-Biden’s old-fashioned “higher taxes and more spending” mentality will SMASH that dream.

On a personal note, if you dream of finally purchasing a new, high-performance V8 musclecar, sports car or the SUV of your choice, the radical Obama-Biden increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy and obsequious fealty to the anti-oil environmental crowd will SMASH that dream.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are dream SMASHERS. Plain and simple.

The only real hope to protect the dreams of ordinary Americans is to vote for McCain-Palin.

The preceeding is commentary protected by the First Amendment and is not paid for or sponsored by any candidate or political party. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.

If this commentary seems vaguely familiar, it was reworded to avoid the robo-censors of certain websites (You know who you are).

OBAMA’S “NEIGHBORLY” SOCIALISM

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

When Barack Obama’s multipart jousting with independent center-right talk show host Bill O’Reilly on Fox News Channel touched on Obama’s liberal “Robin Hood” tax increase plan, O’Reilly charged that the plan is socialist income redistribution. Obama countered that it’s “neighborly” for someone who is financially secure to give up part of their income to “a waitress” who is struggling.

BIG GOVERNMENT AS “NEIGHBOR?”

Barack Obama’s conception of being “neighborly” boils down to taking by force of law the hard-earned cash from those whom the Government determines don’t really need it (without any particularized analysis of need), laundering it through a huge, inefficient bureaucracy, and then paying a fraction of it to those who did nothing to earn it as an entitlement.

Some neighbor.

Being a neighbor used to mean voluntary association with those who lived near to you. “Neighborly” once meant “Appropriate to the relation of neighbors; friendly.”

Old-fashioned neighborliness involved personal interactions and personal decisions to help individuals we personally identified as being in temporary need.


The honest recipients of neighborly generosity have no sense of entitlement. Only gratitude for receipt of help that was freely given under the color of grace and friendship.

Neighborliness used to mean a personal relationship.

But in Barack Obama’s liberal world, “neighborly” means taking that money a small business person has set aside for investing in new tools and equipment or to hire additional employees and giving it by force over to some stranger who did nothing to deserve it.

“Neighborly” in Obama-speak means forcing grieving families to liquidate their family businesses upon the death of their industrious matriarchs or patriarchs to share the assets with a thirsty federal bureaucracy and a group of underachieving strangers.

“Neighborly” in Obama’s socialist mind amounts to subsidizing a huge class of permanent adolescents with an “allowance” from their big federal “mama,” paid for by those workers and investors who already shoulder the vast majority of the cost for our bloated government.

Barack Obama, the self-proclaimed agent of “Change” (who incidentally votes the Democrat party line 97% of the time) certainly has a distorted concept of what it means to be “neighborly.” And apparently, April 15 is the most “neighborly” day of the year among the covetous Obama-ians.

Undoubtedly Barack Obama’s ideas for a super-sized federal government as “neighbor” are derived from the lessons of Chicago-Style machine politics and filtered through the liberal United Church of Christ social gospel Obama heard for years from the radical Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

The Chicago machine traditionally followed the Tammany Hall model of “spreading the graft” around to those who “need” it in order to buy the votes necessary to stay in power.

Tammany Hall bosses (we could call them “community organizers” in today’s politically correct vernacular) organized and policed immigrant communities, secured patronage jobs for the truly “deserving,” and even parceled out valuable goods and services. All these community organizing “bosses” wanted in return was unquestioned loyalty on election day.

Liberals in the Twentieth Century institutionalized and partially nationalized this “Robin Hood” model in the modern, urban welfare state. Instead of building a system that encouraged and rewarded personal responsibility, delayed gratification, self-sacrifice to get ahead, and personal industry, the big urban political machines created a system of dependency, patronage and public subsidy of irresponsible behavior.

Obama’s vaunted “community organizer” experience was based on facilitating this urban liberal redistributionist model.

Obama’s chosen Christian denomination, the United Church of Christ, claims:

Jesus was a low-wage worker, just like too many workers in the U.S. today. Nurses aides, hotel housekeepers, farm workers, day laborers, early childcare specialists, fast food workers, retail sales clerks, and custodians are examples of workers who provide needed services but who usually receive wages so low that they cannot keep a family out of poverty.

However, instead of encouraging people to turn off the TV, put down the bottle and the crack pipe, train and study hard, delay unnecessary luxuries, discipline themselves, and work their way out of entry-level jobs into something better, Obama’s liberal United Church of Christ favors discarding any pretense of personal industry and the free market for labor by replacing it with big government programs to make such low skill, entry-level jobs financially attractive as life-long careers.

In other words, they want forced conscription of money from those who have earned it and redistribution to those whom the free market says haven’t.

Already, the bottom fifty percent of taxpayers pay less than three percent of tax revenues. But exempting these folks from government-coerced “neighborliness” isn’t enough. Obama, according to the sparing with O’Reilly, wants to send millions of these people an unearned check.

Apparently these “gift” recipients don’t need the “civic pride” of supporting the federal system, except as greedy parasites.

Who pays for this?

America’s small businesses, ranches and farms. America’s entrepreneurs. America’s hard-working professionals. America’s risk-taking investors. America’s wealth creators.

In other words, the same people who already fund over three-quarters of the federal government.

Ultimately, these government-imposed costs of doing business are passed on to the middle class in the form of higher prices, reduced service and reduced quality.

And by some estimates, Obama’s tax increase could be as much as one trillion dollars too small to fund the grandiose plans he has for our new national “neighborhood.”

The left often decries the dangers of “theocracy.” Indeed, fifty-five liberal preachers, mostly from Obama’s own left-wing United Church of Christ, have filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service to threaten and coerce conservatives from speaking out on moral issues from the pulpit. Ostensibly, this anti-First Amendment hectoring is aimed at preventing the morality of traditional Christianity from influencing secular politics.

But the very same left seeks to enforce some sort of “brothers’s keeper” “neighborliness” with other people’s money. And the very same United Church of Christ denomination has at times welcomed Barack Obama into the pulpits of their churches to spread his partisan message of wealth redistribution and big government.

Pardon some taxpayers if they would expect a “theocracy” would be better and more fair than Obama-mania. Under the biblical legal system, only a tenth of one’s income was payable as “the tithe.” Under Obama’s dream, some taxpayers will be forced to split the results of their labors fifty/fifty with an insatiable government.

Is taking half of someone’s money “neighborly?”

Or is it just plain, old-fashioned socialism.

The voters in November will make the call.

ONE HUNDRED BILLION REASONS WHY CONGRESS SHOULD GUARANTEE LOANS TO THE U.S. AUTOMAKERS

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

[See why Obama and Biden are the Dreamkillers here]

The Detroit 3 are asking the United States Congress for $50 Billion in loan guarantees.

Some purist free-marketers question why should the government “bail out” America’s car companies.

Why not let them die the same kind of natural death as other American consumer product industries, such as electronics, apparel and toys?

Isn’t the free market the most efficient at picking the winners and losers?

WAIT A SECOND! WHAT FREE MARKET?

Decades of unfunded U.S. government meddling in the U.S. light vehicle market have nearly killed Detroit from thousands of cuts.

While the Japanese invaders have been able to take advantage of “right to work” state laws which dramatically lower their labor and “legacy” costs, the Detroit 3 are saddled with expensive labor unions imposed upon them through 1930s Federal labor policies.

And in the 1970s, when it came time to “reinvent” the car because of the unfunded mandates of the Clean Air Act and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, Detroit bore the lion’s share of the development costs.

(Because the original standards weren’t attribute based, the Japanese invaders were able to sell technologically crude small cars until Detroit had perfected the large vehicle compliance technology)

Unfunded U.S. Government mandates over the past two decades forced Detroit into a short-term shift into trucks, vans and SUVs to maintain some profitability and respond to market effects. Just because Washington D.C. forced smaller cars in the 1980s didn’t change the fact that Americans needed and wanted larger and more capable vehicles. But Washington's policies dictated that these vehicles simply couldn't be automobiles.

The current fuel price spike is the result of a “perfect storm” of short-sighted Federal policies.

Liberal U.S. government trade policy with China, and other far Eastern nations has resulted in a huge increase in petroleum consumption outside of the U.S. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alterations of the formulas for gasoline and diesel have drastically increased the costs of refining transportation fuels. Expansion of commercial air travel has also increased the pressure on fuel prices. Meanwhile, the Feds have blocked construction of new refineries for the past two decades. Congress has refused to allow meaningful development of new off-shore and Alaskan petroleum sources. America has also lagged in development of natural gas, coal and oil shale alternatives. Moreover, the War in Iraq has undoubtedly increased instability and speculation in the world oil markets.

As a result, Ford Motor Company has LOST “$23.9 billion in the past 2 1/2 years and has had to mortgage its assets to stay in business as the U.S. auto market has shifted away from profitable trucks and sport utility vehicles to more fuel-efficient models.”

On top of that, the Federal Government has now imposed ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000,000.00) or more of new, unfunded fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions mandates in the latest round of regulatory revisions. These new standards will kill off all of the sorts of vehicles that Detroit is best at building and will force the entire light vehicle market onto the playing field of the Japanese invaders.

ONE IN TWELVE U.S. JOBS STILL DEPENDS ON AMERICA’S AUTO INDUSTRY.

Certainly the Detroit 3 have done a pitiful job at pointing out the effect that buying American has on American job retention and creation. Back during the Great Depression, General Motors published brochures detailing the “multiplier” effects that the sale of one GM car had on the struggling U.S. economy.

Yet nowadays, the lazy and hapless wonks in the Glass House apparently cannot explain to the public how much better buying an American-designed, American-engineered and American-built Ford is for the American taxpayer than sending more and more of our American Dollars to Japan (even if the Japanese cars are ultimately bolted together in some low-wage Southern state).

Mark Fields, Ford's president of the Americas, said "This is not about benefiting Wall Street like maybe some of the other actions that have been taken. This is benefiting Main Street, the working men and women. The auto industry is part of the backbone of the U.S. economy."

The Detroit 3 haters are correct that some of the problem is of Detroit’s own making.

Greedy, bean-counting chumps like Lee Iacocca, Red Poling, Jac-the-Knife Nassar, and the apparently clueless William Clay Ford, Jr. left Ford without a contingency plan for the current “storm.”

Ford sullied its brands with too many daily rental car sales, too many panache-less and overly conservative products (i.e. Five Hundred/New Taurus) and a few high-profile safety lapses.

Ford’s laudable desire for union peace has often lead to collective bargaining agreements that were too lucrative in the short term and unsustainable in the long term (of course those 1930s Federal labor laws make it nearly impossible for Ford to shed its expensive and selfish unions).

Ford has neglected variety and sporting fun in its small car lines for most of the past thirty years.

Too often, cost cutting, not quality has been “Job One.”

Ford also neglected in the quest for mass market profits, several important, image-building niches, such as high-performance “muscle cars”, sports sedans, sports cars, luxury vehicles and high-technology fuel savers.

Ford's greedy dealers have often failed to recruit new customers, failed to match the aggressive advertising and promotions of the import stores, alienated the youth market, and have ripped off old customers with unreasonable mark-ups, shady deal practices, unethical service practices and other "profit center" gimmicks.

Ford let the Japanese gain a beachhead which is now an invasion.

Consequently, Ford has lost a couple of generations to the Japanese automakers. The other members of the Detroit 3 have similar stories of missteps and squandered opportunities.

But the Japanese haven’t competed under a strictly free market model. Japan’s automakers incubated under a harsh protectionist policy. Japan’s government has encouraged the development of an auto industry that relies predominantly on exports for profits. Japan’s labor costs have often undercut Detroit. And Japan’s social policies spread much of their industry’s “legacy” costs across the economy. Japan’s government has bankrolled numerous technological fixes, such as Toyota’s trendy hybrid electric system.

Thus, while the U.S. government was doing its dead-level best to kill the American auto industry, Japan’s government was sponsoring its American invasion.

Something’s wrong with that picture.

It is past time for Washington’s politicians to recognize and admit that a huge part of Detroit’s problems are the fault of the federal government. The relatively puny loan guarantees requested by the Detroit 3 are merely a “drop in the bucket” compared to the Katrina-sized damage that Washington’s ham-fisted regulators and politicians have done to America’s auto industry.

Loan guarantees are the least they can do.