GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Campaign watch: After New Hampshire

On the Left, Hillary Clinton was the big winner in Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire, but it was hardly the stunning upset portrayed by the media. Clinton’s three-point victory over Barack Obama doesn’t really qualify as a “comeback,” but the media’s dual role in playing down her expectations and playing up his made it appear to be a historic turnaround. Memo to the 24-hour info-tainment media: Take a breath; there are still 48 states to go, and Obama’s momentum is unlikely to stall before the next big contest in South Carolina on 26 January. South Carolina is John Edwards’ territory (yes, he’s still in the race), but the focus is likely to be on Clinton and Obama.

There is widespread speculation as to what swung the Granite State Clinton’s way. Was it the well-run Clinton machine within the state, or was it her crocodile tears that won sympathy votes? If it’s any indication, the woman who asked the question that made Hillary “tear up” actually voted for Obama, so maybe it was a mixture of the two. The only certainty at this point is that nothing is certain when it comes to Clinton’s candidacy.

For the GOP, John McCain was New Hampshire’s big winner, and, like Clinton, he was labeled a “comeback kid,” although in his case, it was deserved. Last summer, McCain’s campaign was on life support, but his victory this week ensures that the race to the Republican nomination will be an exciting one that may go all the way to the convention for the first time in decades.

The next contest for the Republicans will be 15 January in Mitt Romney’s home state of Michigan—a good place for a much needed victory for his campaign. That’s not to say that Michigan is guaranteed to swing his way. His second-place finishes in Iowa (nine points behind Huckabee) and New Hampshire (six points behind McCain) seem all the more mediocre considering how much sweat and treasure he spent in the two states. Sure, he won the Wyoming primary with 66 percent of the vote, but in the high-stakes world of primary politics, that’s like saying he won… Wyoming.

Aside from McCain and Romney, Fred Thompson will be looking to assert himself in South Carolina, which takes place on 19 January for the Republicans. He even got an early start by heading down South while his Republican colleagues trudged through the snow looking for votes. Mike Huckabee will also be looking to prove that his Iowa victory was not a fluke, and he may have an easier time of that with Southern conservatives. Also, expect the phantom candidate, Rudy Giuliani, to reappear sometime soon. The more topsy-turvy the GOP nomination contest looks, the more reasonable Giuliani’s strategy of holding out for the big states seems to be.

From the Left: NH voter fraud?

Members of a non-profit organization dedicated to elections oversight are questioning the final vote count from the Democrats’ New Hampshire primary. BlackBoxVoting.org notes that in the 80 percent of New Hampshire districts using the notoriously non-secure Diebold electronic-voting machines, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton received at least five percent more votes than her rival, Barack Obama. In districts where the votes were counted by hand, Obama had the advantage. BlackBoxVoting admits that while this isn’t proof of election fraud, the raw numbers are “odd” and “worthy of further investigation.”

Among the many critics of electronic-voting machines are The Patriot’s own technical staff. Having worked with computer technology for most of our professional lives, we understand the weaknesses that are inherent to any computerized device. While hanging chads might be an undesirable side effect of paper ballots, we believe electronic voting to be a much greater threat to free and fair elections—especially when Democrats are involved.

News from the Swamp: Rejecting pork

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund highlighted a little-known fact about the close-to 9,000 earmarks that were inserted into the $516-billion omnibus bill sent to President George Bush before Christmas. A vast majority of the earmarks are not legally binding because they were slipped into the committee report on the bill, meaning the President can ignore them altogether. Federal agencies would still be obligated to spend the appropriated funds, but the money could be used as the agencies directed instead of on the pet projects that legislators use to swing votes for re-election. Budget Director Jim Nussle is currently looking into ways to deal with the pork as part of President Bush’s newfound tough stance on spending. The President needs to hold the line if there is to be any hope of bringing fiscal responsibility to Washington.

In the Senate: Landrieu fights bribery charges

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is a top target for Republicans in November, and she is not helping her case at the moment. A liberal watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), is requesting that the Senate Ethics Committee investigate Landrieu for allegedly earmarking $2 million for Voyager Expanded Learning only days after receiving $30,000 from the company. Of course, Sen. Landrieu vehemently denies bribery—her office called the complaint “frivolous” and “wholly without merit.” Surely there’s nothing to this because Democrats always stay on the straight and narrow.

Union shenanigans draw attention of Labor Dept

One reason America’s labor unions are so eager to see Democrats back in the White House is that then they won’t have to worry about being under the watchful eye of people like Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. According to the department’s Office of Labor Management Standards, court-ordered restitution of union funds increased 16 fold since 2000, when the Clinton administration offered virtually no oversight of unions. Nearly $70 million in restitution has been collected in this decade from cases of embezzlement, illegal electioneering and fraud. In 2007 there were 406 criminal cases filed in connection with illegal activities by unions, leading to 118 convictions. The AFL-CIO persuaded its Democrat friends in Congress to slash funds for the Labor Department’s union-oversight office, and if the Democrats win the White House and hold onto Congress in 2008, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if that office is closed altogether.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Naval gazing in the Persian Gulf

On 6 January, three United States Navy warships were confronted by five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz, the gateway to the Persian Gulf through which 20 percent of the world’s oil supply is transported. The USS Port Royal, USS Ingraham and USS Hopper were in international waters when the armed speedboats came as close as 200 yards and threatened via radio to blow up the American ships. The speedboats finally and abruptly peeled off as the commander of the Hopper was on the verge of giving the order to fire.

Notably, in November 2007, responsibility for Iranian naval operations in the Persian Gulf region was given to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a militant group committed to Islamic jihad. In October 2007, the U.S. officially classified the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. The U.S. cited the group’s support for the Iraqi insurgency in particular and violent extremism in general. The Revolutionary Guard became infamous in the Iran-Iraq War for its use of suicidal human-wave attacks.

Since the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole by al-Qa'ida operatives, in which an explosive-laden craft killed 17 American sailors, the U.S. Navy has been especially concerned about small, fast boats operating in close proximity to its warships. A suicidal “swarm attack” by dozens of these highly maneuverable boats would be difficult for the U.S. Navy’s larger, less agile vessels to defend against. Sunday’s confrontation serves to validate the Navy’s concerns and further demonstrates the kind of irregular, asymmetric warfare that Iran intends to wage against its enemies.

Forced Military Correctness: Whale watching

Speaking of the Navy, a Federal District Court ruled to require lookouts and other restrictions on Navy testing of new active-sonar equipment—all in order to prevent possible harm to marine mammals in the area. These restrictions severely limit the Navy’s ability to conduct vital testing for this new and vastly superior sonar system, not to mention the fact that our enemies probably won’t stop for a dolphin.

Meanwhile, Iran has announced the launch of a new domestically produced submarine in conjunction with the 1 February start of exercise, “Etehad 86,” a maneuver intended to “increase the military capabilities of the Iranian Navy.” U.S. Navy officials must be concerned that this new submarine may be capable of deploying the new supersonic and highly capable anti-ship missile known as the “Sizzler,” or SS-N-27B. Apparently the Iranian Navy is not burdened by bathtub admirals in a district court and is instead busy trying to expand its military capabilities. Would that our courts were as concerned with our U.S. Marine and Navy “mammals” as they are with whales.

Profiles of valor: Marine Corps Sgt. Martinez

During the initial American assault against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, a former gang member turned Marine displayed outstanding courage under fire. On 12 April 2003, then-Cpl. Marco Martinez, serving with the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, received a call for reinforcements from an ambushed platoon. Martinez took control after his squad leader was wounded by a grenade and moved his team to assault positions against the enemy. The Marines then fully engaged their more numerous enemy. Under heavy fire, Martinez noticed an enemy grenade launcher left behind. He ran into the open under cover fire, grabbed the RPG launcher and used it to take on the enemy single-handedly, while the other Marines then tended to the wounded. He quickly took out several jihadis, ending the firefight. In May 2004, Martinez received the Navy Cross. Through it all, he is grateful: “All I ever am, or will become, I owe to my beloved Corps.” Semper Fi!

Bush: In Iraq for a decade

Amid news about President Bush’s visit to Israel this week was a largely overlooked report concerning Iraq and our ongoing military deployment in the region. President Bush was asked about recent remarks by John McCain insisting that the U.S. should have a significant military presence in Iraq for many decades. The President replied that there “could very well be” a long-term U.S. deployment in Iraq at the invitation of Baghdad, and when asked if that could be longer than a decade, he replied, “It could easily be that, absolutely.”

A 2005 essay by Patriot publisher Mark Alexander, “We should stay in Iraq—for decades,” outlined the strategic national-security rationale for long-term deployment in Iraq, similar to our post-WWII deployment in Germany. Such deployments are critical to prosecute the Long War against Jihadistan.

Warfront with Jihadistan: Al-Qa'ida in Pakistan

Is the U.S. gearing up to strike al-Qa'ida bases in Pakistan? According to The New York Times, the Bush administration is considering expanding military operations into Pakistan’s mountainous tribal regions, seeking out bases where top al-Qa'ida and Taliban leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are supposedly holed up. On the one hand, it’s amazing that it has taken this long for the U.S. to consider such operations. Since the Afghanistan invasion, we have known that the mountains of Pakistan are where remnant al-Qa'ida and Taliban forces retreated. Even Afghan officials have started dropping heavy hints that they would be happy to see U.S. forces attack terrorist safe havens in Pakistan, realizing that Allied forces in Afghanistan won’t make lasting progress until the terrorists’ command-and-control ability from outside Afghanistan is eliminated.

On the other hand, though, is the possibility that a nuclear Pakistan would be destabilized by any U.S. operations within the country. Pakistan’s President Musharraf has been extremely helpful to U.S. operations in Afghanistan, but he has also given amnesty to terrorists in the tribal area and has released terror suspects from custody, all of which highlights our need for Musharraf to balance U.S. interests against a restive Muslim population. Pakistan could explode if Musharraf openly allowed U.S. operations in the country. Does the U.S. go after al-Qa'ida and risk losing Pakistan and its nuclear weapons, or is al-Qa'ida allowed to consolidate and control their worldwide operations from Pakistan? Neither choice is good, but one or the other is in the offing.

Homeland Security: Missile defense and phone bills

The Polish government, under new management since the October elections, signaled this week that it is cooling somewhat to a proposed plan to station U.S. land-based missile defenses on its territory. The plan, not yet crafted into a formal agreement, would have Poland host ten silos for interceptor missiles, while the Czech Republic would host the radar. Poland’s Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, indicated that the new government, led by the Civic Platform bloc, is not entirely pulling the plug on the possibility, but is decidedly less enthusiastic than the previous government. Said Sikorski, “We feel no threat from Iran,” alluding to the principal reason for placing missile defenses in Europe. Perhaps he missed the announcement from the Iranians that they have developed a new missile, the Ashura, with a range of 2,000 kilometers—enough to reach the southern Europe landmass. The Defense Department believes Iran could test the missile by 2009.

In news from the Homeland Insecurity Department, the FBI’s access to wiretaps of alleged terrorists has been cut off due to “untimely payment.” Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine said, “Late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence.” An FBI spokesman countered, “No evidence was lost in these cases.” After the bills were paid, access was restored. Still, this doesn’t exactly instill confidence in U.S. intelligence.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Populists hope for recession

Recent data indicate that the American economy is likely weakening a bit in the short term—no cause for panic, but cause for concern. The economy’s core, made up of factory output, trade, capital goods and the like, is indisputably strong. However, in the wake of last year’s housing and credit difficulties, the recent increase in unemployment numbers suggests things aren’t as strong as they could be.

The cause for concern is not that there may be some economic catastrophe. Our fundamentals are strong, and unemployment—as painful as it often is—will always be necessary in a vibrant, changing economy. The cause for concern is that economic populists in both parties (Republicans such as Huckabee, Democrats such as, well, all of them) will use these indicators as fodder for their election-year demagoguery. What we need is less government involvement, not more. Presidents do not create jobs, employers do, the claims of politicians notwithstanding. The only thing the federal government should be doing is getting out of the way—by lowering taxes and reducing regulation. Fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax and reducing the U.S. corporate tax would be great places to start.

Income Redistribution: More tax cuts

In light of the slowing economy, President Bush is looking to propose one of the best things government can do: cut taxes. The options include a $500 tax rebate for individuals to encourage consumer spending and a modification in current tax laws to allow companies to deduct more for equipment investment. The proposals mirror the steps taken in 2001 and 2002 to stave off recession then. Of course, Democrats in Congress—specifically Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—would rather spend our way out of economic slowdown. Schumer said that if the President “takes spending stimuli off the table, it’s going to be hard to deal with him.” When was the last time consumers felt better about the economy because Congress spent more of the taxpayers’ money?

A much better idea would be to extend President Bush’s previous tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. He said, “In times of uncertainty, it seems like Congress ought to be sending a message that we’re not going to raise your taxes in the next three years.” Indeed, the U.S. is falling further behind countries such as Russia, Estonia, Bulgaria and Kuwait in terms of tax rates. The Wall Street Journal noted, “[W]ith a corporate tax rate of 35 percent [the U.S. ] is one of the few developed nations left with a rate of more than 30 percent.” Look for the President’s proposal before the State of the Union Address on 28 January.

China’s economy is not what it seems

Most Americans assume that the Chinese economy is firing on all cylinders, growing rapidly and threatening to surpass the United States in the near future. This sort of claim is heard often during an election season as candidates (usually, but not always, on the Left) haul out the protectionist scare tactics: The U.S. economy is slowing, China is surging and all of our jobs are allegedly being shipped overseas. Fear of China is used to motivate all manner of anti-free-market and anti-free-trade policies from higher tariffs to more regulatory powers for the FDA.

China does have a strong economy, and it certainly is growing, but the numbers offered to indicate the size of the Chinese economy have been notoriously unreliable—for the simple reason that the Communist regime hasn’t allowed accurate data to be released. In recent years, however, the World Bank has been able to put together more transparent and accurate data on the Chinese economy, and the results are surprising.

China’s economy is not nearly as large or as fast growing as once thought. China places a distant second behind the United States in sheer size, producing ten percent of the world’s GDP to the U.S. ‘ 23 percent. When it comes to wealth distribution, China ranks far behind the leading seven nations: the U.S. , Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy and Spain. Current estimates suggest that nearly 300 million of China’s citizens live below the World Bank’s poverty line, three times the previous estimate of 100 million. China is no weakling, but the World Bank’s analysis makes it clear that we should be careful about trusting data provided by the nation’s Communist overlords.

In general, the United States benefits from trade with China, especially as a growing Chinese middle class means growing markets for American goods and services. This means that the election-season scare tactics are doubly misleading: A growing Chinese economy is not a bad thing. Even if it were, the Chinese are nowhere near matching the size, versatility and technological capability of the U.S.

$100 oil here to stay?

With oil hovering around $100 a barrel, OPEC recently indicated it has no interest in ramping up production to drive the cost down, saying $100 a barrel “is not necessarily very high.” The U.S. is signaling that increased production is not especially appealing either, leaving OPEC to conclude that we don’t really mind paying more for oil. During the presidential-election cycle, candidates are mostly blaming “greedy” oil companies here at home, rather than looking in the mirror. With environmental regulations becoming more prevalent and refineries only getting older, the solution seems simple enough: Drill for more oil domestically and build more refineries. In other words, increase supply, and the price will decrease. The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is ripe for drilling, but no Democrats and few Republicans on the campaign trail are suggesting we drill there—or anywhere else, for that matter. Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a top oil forecaster, predicts oil demand will increase by 1.3 million barrels a day in 2008, while U.S. inventories have fallen. Yet U.S. politicians remain unwilling to try real solutions.

CULTURE

Around the nation: Gun control

In one of the latest rounds of gun-control feeding frenzies, New York State Assemblyman Michael Gianaris (D-Queens) recently introduced legislation to require a background check and permit to purchase muzzle-loading, or black powder, guns. Until now, these antique guns have been exempt from state regulation and licensing requirements. The bill is a reaction to two recent incidents. In one, a student with a history of psychological illness brought a loaded black-powder rifle onto the campus of St. John’s University, and in the other, a convicted felon used such a rifle to shoot and injure a New York State Trooper. Aside from the obvious constitutional issues, there is concern that the proposed regulations could limit hunting and virtually end the ability to collect antique guns or re-enact historical battles in the state.

Still, this isn’t government’s first attempt to violate the rights of many based on the crimes of a few. Washington, DC, is currently seeking to uphold its universal ban on handguns, ostensibly to eliminate “gun-created crimes.” The Second Amendment is on trial before the Supreme Court for the first time in more than 70 years. DC’s lawyers submitted a brief last Friday stating, “In enacting the handgun ban, the [District] Council found that less restrictive approaches would not be adequate…[T]he ultimate resolution of the problems of gun-created crimes and gun-created accidents… is the elimination of the availability of handguns.” Yes, and it’s worked so well so far…

In related news, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld a lower court’s ruling that the city of San Francisco could not bar residents from owning a handgun, despite the approval of voters in November 2005.

Also in the news was President Bush’s signing of the NICS (National Instant Check System) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 this week. According to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who introduced the bill, it “will close the wide gaps in our nation’s firearm background check system to ensure violent criminals and the mentally ill no longer slip through the cracks and gain access to dangerous weapons.” The massacre at Virginia Tech was one impetus for the legislation.

Judicial Benchmarks: 'Cruel and unusual’

The Supreme Court is going to decide whether death by lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Before the Court is Kentucky’s lethal-injection process, which consists of a three-drug protocol consisting of sodium thiopental, to render the condemned inmate unconscious; pancuronium bromide, to paralyze the muscles; and potassium chloride, to cause cardiac arrest. Kentucky’s method is similar to what has been used in more than 900 executions in the United States during the past 30 years.

The plaintiffs say that if the first drug does not work, the second induces a “terrifying, conscious paralysis” and the third an “excruciating burning pain as it courses through the veins.” Those objecting to the process said it would be better to inject inmates with a single, massive dose of barbiturates, the way animals are euthanized. Apparently, little thought was given to the terrifying and excruciating pain inflicted on victims by these criminals on death row. It is important to note that the Kentucky case does not challenge the propriety of the death sentence, only the three-drug protocol that carries it out. It is worth noting that when the Eighth Amendment was crafted, execution by hanging or firing squad was common practice.

Faith and Family: ‘In God We Trust’ returns

Beginning in 2009, the nation’s motto, “In God We Trust,” will return to the face of the presidential dollar coins. The national mint began producing the coins in 2007, with the faces of the first four Presidents—George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. However, the motto was to be inscribed on the side of the coin, rather than on the face. There was a flap for some time afterward, when the motto was apparently left off some coins altogether, due to an error at the mint. Now, thanks to a provision in the 2008 domestic-spending bill signed by the President after Christmas, the motto will return to either the front or back of the coin, “as soon as is practicable.” The motto will remain on the edge in 2008 for Presidents James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, but the coins will be modified for 2009.

And last…

Amidst all the hubbub and hoopla surrounding the 2008 campaign for president, as well as the earth-shattering announcement that Bill Richardson (who?) is dropping out of the Democrat race, many folks may have missed another important event: Jean-Francois Kerry has endorsed Barack Obama. “Who better than Barack Obama to bring new credibility to America’s role in the world and help restore our moral authority?” the erstwhile presidential candidate asked rhetorically. Say it ain’t so, Jean-Francois. Barack was only seven years old when Fightin’ John was dodging bullets during Christmas ‘68 in Cambodia. “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia,” said Kerry not so long ago. “I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared—seared—in me.” Given this gripping narrative, and given that young Barack didn’t even serve in Vietnam, how can the first-term senator possibly convince the voters that he’s qualified to run for president?

Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)