FOXNews.com: Hamas, Israel fighting shattered 2 big American foreign policy myths

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Hamas, Israel fighting shattered 2 big American foreign policy myths Nov 30th 2012, 19:00 This holiday season, the people of the world can be thankful for the tentative ceasefire that put a stop to the latest violent conflict between Israel and Hamas. And the world can also be thankful that the fighting revealed two big myths about American foreign policy. First, there is the argument – often put forward by left-wingers – that any missile defense shield is a fantasy, a waste of money and unworthy of U.S. support. Beginning in 1983 with the creation of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, critics have attacked the idea as better suited for science fiction – calling it "Star Wars." They said that the laws of physics made such a project virtually impossible – like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet. The world can be thankful that the fighting between Israel and Hamas revealed two big myths about American foreign policy.  - As a journalist covering the Reagan White House, my phone rang off the hook with hooting from the skeptics. They said there was no clear evidence that showed the technology existed to shoot down an aerial missile from the ground-based missile. But in a Wall Street Journal news story from Tel Aviv this week, the Israeli military reported an 84 percent success rate from Iron Dome – meaning Israel hit 84 percent of Hamas missiles. Some press reports and military assessments put the number closer to 90 percent. Military scholar Max Boot wrote for Commentary magazine's website this week that the Iron Dome was proof that "Missile defense works," and that was the "latest vindication for the vision of Ronald Reagan." Let's also acknowledge that missile defense technology is far from perfected. For one thing, the Israelis were defending against missiles fired from Gaza, which is less than 100 miles away. But one key believer in the efficacy of a missile shield appears to be President Obama. Earlier this year, with the support of Congress, President Obama authorized $70 million in aid to Israel to help fund the Iron Dome program. This funding was in addition to the $3.1 billion in aid to Israel, the president requested this year. That amount was not just the largest request for assistance to Israel; it is the largest foreign aid request for any country, ever in U.S. history. That brings me to the second big misconception revealed by the recent Israeli-Hamas conflict. Republicans who doubted President Obama's commitment to the security of Israel have been proven wrong by the president's steadfast support of Israel in this crisis. Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, made this point in a post on his official Facebook page last week "The president repeatedly upheld Israel's right to defend itself and placed the blame of the violence entirely on Hamas. The people of Israel thank Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her tireless efforts to broker a ceasefire and to enhance security in our region. And the people of Israel want to thank the president and Congress for their generous backing of Iron Dome, Israel's revolutionary anti-missile system that intercepted more than 400 terrorist rockets." The outgoing Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, has even said of President Obama's first term, "I can hardly remember a better period of American support and backing, and Israeli cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now." The American Israel Public Affairs Committee made a similar statement before the presidential election, saying "President Obama and the bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership have deepened America's support for Israel in difficult times." This praise makes Mitt Romney's claim during the campaign that President Obama "threw Israel under the bus" look all the more laughable. The 2012 presidential campaign was sorely lacking in any meaningful discussion of U.S. foreign policy and military policy. Romney barely mentioned foreign policy in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention – and made no mention of the war or the troops. And the intense politics surrounding the U.S. relationship with Israel make it difficult to have straight-forward, honest discussions about U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East. In the old American West it was famously said that the sight of the hangman's noose had the ability to focus the mind. Today a conflict that threatened to start World War III helped to clarify the facts about U.S. policy in the Middle East. Juan Williams is a Fox News political analyst. He is the author of several books including "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It" and "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Why Obama could lose this round as fiscal crisis grows

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Why Obama could lose this round as fiscal crisis grows Nov 30th 2012, 20:15 President Obama, fresh off his victory lap, is about to overplay his hand.  The most recent proposals from the White House aimed at averting the fiscal cliff included not only the president's cherished tax hikes, but other demands that will strike any neutral observer as absurd.  Even the liberal media couldn't swallow the fantasy launched by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner; the New York Times described the plan as "loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts."  Mr. Geithner, acting as the president's missionary, proposed extending the payroll tax cut (something both parties earlier opposed), $1.6 trillion in tax hikes – way beyond previous demands -- extension of unemployment benefits that already exceed any previous coverage – and also a "permanent" ability to raise the debt ceiling, independent of Congress. There was no significant effort to rein in our bloated spending. The president is also demanding a new $50 billion stimulus program – a request that threatens to remind voters of just why it was they gave Republicans control of the House after Mr. Obama's first two years in office. President Obama appears very confident that if the budget talks fail, Republicans in the House will attract most of the blame. - The president is feeling feisty. He has been energized not only by victory, but also by returning to his comfort zone: campaign-style events in which he's touted his tax hikes on the wealthy. But -- his approval ratings have already started to sag (Rasmussen has his approval index and minus 7 compared to a post-election high of minus 2), and the number of people convinced the country is heading in the wrong direction is again on the increase. President Obama appears very confident that if the budget talks fail, Republicans in the House will attract most of the blame. That may be, but he should remember that his own approval ratings collapsed to an all-time low in the aftermath of the failed debt ceiling negotiations last year. Voters may hold GOP leaders responsible, but they won't be happy with their president, either. If he hopes to follow through on his campaign promises -- including tackling immigration reform, for instance – he needs the backing of the people. Otherwise, his legacy will be trillions in new debt, and a failed recovery. Mr. Obama also seems to think that by reelecting him, voters gave a rousing thumbs-up to his fiscal choices, which so far have focused primarily on raising taxes on rich people. While polls show the latter to be popular, they also indicate that cutting spending and reining in our budget deficits remain a high priority for Americans. Indeed, recent (post-election) Gallup polling indicates that a growing number of Americans (45%, up from 32% last year) want to mend our fiscal wound through equal measures of tax hikes and spending cuts. The number that favor only raising taxes (which seems to be Mr. Obama's main thrust) has stayed unchanged at just 11%. According to Gallup, some 99% of Americans think a strong economy and job market should be President Obama's number one goal in his second term. The number two priority (88% of those polled) is taking "major steps" to ensure the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare. Those necessary steps are, of course, opposed by Democrats. Most people (92%) consider "major cuts" to federal spending an important objective as well. On that front, they are likely to be disappointed. For October, the deficit soared 22% year-over-year, to $120 billion; spending increased 16% from the year-earlier period. Imagine; even as President Obama boasts of cutting spending, actually outlays are rising at 16%. Funny how the September report, released just before the election, showed a surprising $75 billion surplus. The September figure (mostly reflecting "shifts in the timing of certain payments" according to the CBO) was hailed by the left-leaning Daily Kos website with this headline: "Democrats, As Usual, Better at Deficit Reduction." Not really. Another quite recent Gallup poll shows Americans want compromise – from both parties; eight in ten think that averting the fiscal cliff is very important. Astonishingly, given the ideological divide today, 68% of respondents say that both sides should "compromise equally." That doesn't sound like a mandate to steamroll the GOP. How important is a reasonable compromise going forward? Extremely important. Despite all the excitement over parking-lot scuffles, which have become as much a part of Thanksgiving as stuffed turkey, consumers did not shop with enthusiasm this year. Self-reported data collected by Gallup indicates that consumers spent on average $67 per day the week ended November 25, which included Black Friday weekend, down from $83 a year ago and $79 in 2010. In fact, the figure is equivalent to the depressed 2009 total. Upper-income (self-reported) spending has been trending down since September. This is not too surprising, since wealthier Americans worry that their taxes will go up next year. Since it has been higher-income Americans that have had the capacity to boost spending, this is not a positive trend for the economy. Overall, just-reported consumer spending in the third quarter was disappointing, rising only 1.4%; the figure was revised down from an earlier estimate of a  2% gain. Bottom line: the country's prospects may have brightened recently, as housing has staged a modest bounce off its bottom, but the consumer, and the economy, remains extremely fragile. This is not a good time to undermine the uptick in confidence by resorting to extreme measures – or by trying to score political points.  President Obama may enjoy accolades from liberals for trying to push through income-equalizing tax changes, but most Americans want to see progress on putting our fiscal house in order, and reasonable compromise. They want to see the economy pick up steam and the unemployed go back to work. They are looking for leadership; it's time they found it at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Liz Peek is a FoxNews.com contributor. She is a financial columnist who also writes for The Fiscal Times. For more visit LizPeek.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: What can mobilize and energize Americans in a weak economy?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

What can mobilize and energize Americans in a weak economy? Nov 30th 2012, 11:00 Americans faced a stark choice on Election Day when they were presented with an opportunity to decide between staying the present course with a known leader and taking a new path with a relatively unknown leader.  In spite of the fact that our economy has stagnated and the future is increasingly overshadowed by enormous debt for our children, they chose to endorse President Obama's handling of the economy and give him the reins for four more years.  If their reluctance to side with Gov. Mitt Romney was due to the fact that his principles were unknown, they made a grave mistake. While the change in course seemed like an unknown, it's important to be reminded that the vision Romney championed has formed the backbone of America's economic supremacy for decades. Readers get just such a reminder from Steve Forbes' latest book, Freedom Manifesto: Why Free Markets are Moral and Big Government Isn't. In it, Forbes not only makes a compelling case for free-market capitalism, he also shows in gruesome detail just how entrenched government has become in so many sectors of the U.S. economy – and our daily lives.   In fact, a central theme throughout Forbes' book is the destructive nature of government intervention. Although "Freedom Manifesto" takes an expansive view of government policies going back decades, it pays particular attention to recent events. Names like Solyndra, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the auto industry evoke images of squandered taxpayer money and trillion-dollar bailouts. And most of it came because of government's efforts to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, instead of letting consumer demand driving the success of these entities. Government is expanding its reach now more than ever. Consider America's current path to fiscal disaster: a debt exceeding $16 trillion, record amounts of government spending and deficits, and a looming fiscal cliff that further threatens our economic freedom. As Forbes notes, the so-called "misery index," which equals the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate, is at it highest level in three decades. America cannot sustain itself on its current path. The sustainability problem becomes even more obvious when looking at our ever-expanding entitlement state. Our entitlement programs are not only breeding government dependence; they are collectively the single biggest factor bankrupting our nation. Forbes cites that 70 percent of federal spending now goes to individual assistance programs and over half of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all. The entitlement state crushes the entrepreneurial spirit, transforming our society from a society that creates, to a society that takes. As Forbes asks: "Aren't people better off developing their talents and learning how to help themselves rather than being trapped in dependency on government?" So what can uplift and mobilize Americans – from the CEO to the entrepreneur to the assembly line mechanic -- from our current economic downturn? We need to pursue policies that champion risk, freedom and innovation. In other words, as Forbes writes, "Free markets enable people to channel their creative energies into meeting the wants and needs of others, improving living standards and making life better by turning scarcity into abundance." When the market is left to its own devices and government gets out of the way, individuals create jobs and wealth. Our entitlement programs are not only breeding government dependence; they are collectively the single biggest factor bankrupting our nation. - But today we are seeing the direct opposite of that free society. Government is expanding its reach into nearly every sector of our lives, from health care to the type of energy we consume to the way we run our businesses.  Where has this gotten us?  Our country is experiencing the longest recession since the Great Depression. President Obama often reminds us that he inherited a big mess – and he did. Because of this, our expectations have never been unreasonable. As "Freedom Manifesto" makes clear even through its chapter titles – "FedEx or The Post Office?" "Silicon Valley or Detroit?" "Apple or Solyndra?" – this election really came down to what kind of society we want to be. Do we want an America that grants government the power to control our lives, or an America that champions individualism, innovation and liberty?  We missed an opportunity to correct our course in 2012. I can only hope more people will have read "Freedom Manifesto" by the next election.   Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)®, the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the New York Times bestselling book, "The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream" Contact him on Twitter at @GaryShapiro.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: It's time for Republicans to let Obama own the fiscal crisis

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

It's time for Republicans to let Obama own the fiscal crisis Nov 30th 2012, 14:43 If you thought the bulk of our gridlocked politics would end in November, think again. The prospect of our country going off what's referred to as the "fiscal cliff" has both the right and the left staking out their territory in a battle over how to handle our very unbalanced books. President Obama and a good chunk of Democrats want to raise taxes on the nation's highest earners. Though the president says he also wants to have a conversation about reforming entitlements, he hasn't put any type of proposal on paper. Nor is the president or his party interested in serious spending cuts, aside from cuts to the Department of Defense, something Republicans argue would hurt our national security muscle in a time when we need it the most. At the same time, Republicans have put forth plans to tackle the biggest driver of our debt—entitlements—and even had a presidential ticket that ran on those reforms. The House of Representatives has passed some version of these plans and Speaker John Boehner has adopted a Mitt Romney -- idea to eliminate certain deductions in order to raise revenue to pay down our debt. Raising taxes, however—on anyone—is not an option, they say. Unless one side caves, we're slated to dive off the so-called "cliff" in December. So why don't Republicans just get out of the way and let it happen? It sounds crazy, but there is a case to be made. Let Democrats bring a bill to increase spending on what Obama calls a second stimulus, raise taxes on high earners (including many small businesses) without doing a thing to fix Medicare and Social Security for current and future generations. Republicans can take a page of Obama's playbook and vote present as he did when he was a senator. When the nation falls off the fiscal cliff, he can own it. The tax increases that happen will be the Obama tax increases. When spending spikes, it can be the Obama tax and spend plan. And we slide into recession as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts will happen, it will be the Obama recession. In other words, it's time for the right to call Obama's bluff. Doing so would only further highlight the Democrats' fiscal cliff irresponsibility, especially that of Obama. He almost quadrupled federal spending to that of President George W. Bush, refused to make any changes to entitlements during the debt ceiling debate and has been pushing for higher taxes for years (even though in 2011 he said raising taxes on anyone in a recession would be a mistake when he extended the Bush tax cuts). What's worse? Many who voted for Obama would be disproportionately affected, and low income Americans will be affected the most. According to the Wall Street Journal, "a single unemployed person making less than $10,000 would see his or her taxes rise 55.2%. Loss of benefits for the working poor is a big factor. Many unemployed people also face loss of extended unemployment benefits." "An average married couple making $20,000 to $30,000 would sees their tax go up $1,423, from receiving a $15 refund to paying $1,408. Big factors include the loss of the Bush-era 10% bracket, the loss of relief from the so-called marriage penalty and reduction of the child credit. Average tax rate under the proposal: 5.5% Average federal tax change: Up $1,423, or 9,809%." College students would face an increase of 37.9% and the highest tax increase would hit retirees making around $40,000 at a whopping 42.4%. Just this week, Warren Buffet argued that tax rates need to be more progressive. Many people don't get that the Bush tax cuts already are. They created that beneficial 10% tax bracket for lower middle class earners and took a lot of poor Americans off the tax rolls altogether. The rich are paying more now than ever in taxes because they are making more, despite their rate being slightly lower. Just like in Greece, unless people are affected by the gluttonous spending in Washington in a personal way, they are unlikely to wake up and support any kind of real reform. Plus, the economy is likely to correct itself even in a recession. It's often the actions taken to prevent a recession that can do the most damage rather than letting it happen. If a majority of the country elected Obama to four more years in the White House, then let them have it their way without GOP support.  Perhaps our nation needs to dive off the cliff in order to realize how dire our debt problem really is.  Then maybe they'll support real change.   Plus, Republicans will get blamed anyway. The president's current public relations tour across country on the fiscal cliff is designed for that exact purpose. It's much easier than leading. If as Obama has said, "the buck stops" with him, then let it. America will soon realize that elections do have consequences.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Should Lindsay Lohan be monitored for next decade for her own good?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Should Lindsay Lohan be monitored for next decade for her own good? Nov 30th 2012, 13:30 Lindsay Lohan was arrested, again—this time for allegedly punching a woman in the face at 4 a.m. today, inside a Manhattan nightclub.  She was also charged Thursday with giving false information to police about a motor vehicle accident during June, resisting an officer and reckless driving.   She is currently on probation for a 2011 theft (a necklace).  Her other recent problems have included being party to a domestic dispute with her mother and being involved in a hotel brawl in her hotel room with a male visitor.  She has a history of a Driving Under the Influence arrest and a history of violating the terms of that probation.  Perhaps even worse (only half-kidding), she made friends with actor Charlie Sheen, who famously told the American public, including millions of teenagers, that using 8 grams of cocaine in a night couldn't hurt him because he's too tough. I have never met with or treated Lindsay Lohan (although I have spoken about her informally with her father Michael) and would not be in a position to diagnose her.   When a person, famous or not, demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to take control of his or her life in a way that would give a reasonable individual assurance that no terrible harm will come to her (or someone else), and when a law is also broken, it is time for the court to trigger an aggressive psychiatric protocol. - However, given a different person behaving as Ms. Lohan seems to have been behaving, the facts speak for themselves:  That person is unable to make safe decisions. And when a person, famous or not, demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to take control of his or her life in a way that would give a reasonable individual assurance that no terrible harm will come to her (or someone else), and when a law is also broken, it is time for the court to trigger an aggressive psychiatric protocol. By an "aggressive psychiatric protocol" I mean invoking not just a stay in jail for weeks or a few months, but a very lengthy period of probation—perhaps a decade—during which the person is compelled by law (in order to remain free) to submit to random drug screens, to wear an ankle bracelet that can sense and transmit blood alcohol levels to the police (devices that do exist), to surrender her license, to agree to twice-weekly psychotherapy and any psychiatric medication agreed upon by two independent psychiatrists and to be placed on monthly injections of Vivitrol (a medicine that decreases the likelihood of alcohol and opiate intoxication and cravings).  Any deviation from the "aggressive psychiatric protocol" would lead to probation being revoked, and the remainder of the term being served in jail. As troubled as Ms. Lohan may be, after all, there just isn't an illness known that would compel her to go clubbing, nor compel her to (as happened) play possum with the prior rules of her earlier probation (which included attending substance abuse treatment on a designated schedule). Helping her stay alive and get to the bottom of her troubles can't wait for moments of insight triggered by short stays in community jails.  That goal can only have a reasonable chance of success when the potentially great synergy between the judicial and psychiatric systems is deployed. The Lohan case points out, in fact, the missed opportunities in courtrooms all over America to use psychiatry to greater effect, in order to help people not repeatedly break the law.  I would venture that sentencing a large percentage of first time violent offenders (their choice, in order to avoid prison), for instance, to enforced psychiatric care, ankle bracelets of the kind I mentioned and random drug testing would cut recidivism rates (the rate at which convicts reoffend) by 50 percent, saving many billions of dollars. Lindsay could—and some might say, should—be a public test case. Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Winston Churchill predicted the future -- many times

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Winston Churchill predicted the future -- many times Nov 30th 2012, 05:00 November 30, 1874 is the birthdate of the greatest statesman in history. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan deemed him so. Just his indomitable leadership in World War II rallying a beleaguered Britain to triumph over Nazi tyranny would alone earn him this unique distinction. But the world is not aware that Churchill was a modern Nostradamus in his prophetic wisdom. Among other things, he predicted two World Wars and the Cold War. Even today's headlines are the stuff of predictions he made close to a century ago. In 1905, he foresaw the creation of the Israeli State. Churchill was the first non-Jewish Zionist. Twelve years before the Balfour Declaration, in 1917, Churchill called for a Jewish State. It was not as if he represented New York's Lower East Side or Miami populated by Jews. Then in 1921, in a speech to the House of Commons, he spoke of a militant Islam sect, the Wahabis, more violent than any in history, which would kill their own sisters for wearing the wrong attire. These fierce zealots would terrorize the West with bomb-carrying Jihadists who would burn embassies and destroy buildings by their passion to sacrifice their lives for guarantee of Islam heaven. Winston Churchill II would read his grandfather's speech to President George W. Bush in the White House in 2007. If Churchill didn't exactly predict 9/11, he described its radical extremist perpetrators. President Nixon once told me that Churchill was the only leader who seemed to have a crystal ball. He had "the mind of an historian and courage of a soldier." A scholar of history, he could see patterns replicating themselves. Like a soldier, Churchill would risk political death by telling the people what they didn't want to hear. Spineless politicians or cover-your-ass bureaucrats will never state the ugly truths. Churchill, however, didn't worry about repercussions. He didn't talk in euphemisms or evasions. He delivered the unvarnished facts. The world is not aware that Churchill was a modern Nostradamus in his prophetic wisdom. - The English did not want to hear, after the decimation of a whole generation in World War I, the need to arm for another war threat by the Germans in the 1930's. A decade later, Americans and British turned deaf ears to Churchill's warning that their recent ally, the Soviet Union threatened the democracies of Europe. Even The Wall Street Journal—no left-wing newspaper—denounced Churchill's Iron Curtain Address. Eleanor Roosevelt called Churchill a "war monger." In that same year, 1946, Churchill told Europeans gathering in an assembly in Zurich that Germany, whose armies had only recently devastated their countries, had to be welcomed back into its community for the future prosperity of Europe. Boos accompanied his unwelcome message. The Europeans were appalled that their World War II hero would suggest such an idea. For those who ask what relevance Churchill's predictions have to today's world, they should keep in mind that he predicted the Energy Crisis in 1929. He warned that the West needed new sources of fuel to escape from being beholden to the oil oligarchies of the Middle East. And then in 1957, this writer heard Churchill state that the U.N. was a feckless organization, maimed by a congenital deformity—the Soviet veto— and that it was increasingly dominated by one-party autocratic states. One only has to note President Calderon who stuffs ballot boxes and jails dissidents in Columbia while his country serves on the U.N. Human Rights Commission; or even worse, President Assad of Syria who is slaughtering thousands of his citizens while his country joins Columbia on that Human Rights Commission that is attacking the U.S. for, among other things, using capital punishment and the many African-Americans serving in prison. On his 138th birthday, the world should not only recognize Churchill's championship of freedom, but also study his many predictions that still endanger our liberties and freedoms. James C. Humes , a former White House speechwriter, is the author of the new book,  Churchill: The Prophetic Statesman, Regnery  Publishing, Inc., 2012.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Abbas's UN gambit neglects Hamas threat

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Abbas's UN gambit neglects Hamas threat Nov 29th 2012, 18:44 When Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the UN General Assembly Thursday, Hamas will be preparing to roll out the red carpet again in Gaza to welcome more Middle East leaders. The favored Palestinian port of call these days is Gaza City, not Ramallah, headquarters of the PA. Marginalized by Arab countries, Abbas nonetheless is going ahead with requesting an upgrade of Palestine's status in the UN General Assembly. There never was a doubt this measure, recognizing Palestine as a nonmember observer state, would pass. The Non-Aligned Movement – two-thirds of UN member states -- endorsed Abbas's proposal last summer. Some European countries will vote affirmatively; others will abstain. The U.S., recognizing the harm this will do to the peace process, will oppose. Though it will not bring the Palestinians any closer to achieving an actual state, Abbas is convinced that his appearance at the UN podium in New York Thursday will give him a much-needed boost among the Palestinian people. Resurrecting his persona would be better served by Arab countries encouraging Abbas to return to direct talks with Israel. But that is not likely to happen. The love affair with Hamas also raises questions about the potential for Arab world acceptance of Israel. - Neglect of Abbas and the PA began with the October 23 visit to Gaza of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the emir of Qatar. The first head of state to visit Hamas-ruled Gaza, the emir embraced Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and proclaimed his support for Hamas. Not one word was spoken about peace with Israel. Dozens of rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel the day after the emir's visit. It was a prelude to the escalation in the reach and volume of Hamas attacks that would result three weeks later in Israel's firm military response to defend its citizens. Arab countries, reflexively, lined up with Hamas. Following the Qatari emir's example, Tunisia's foreign minister visited Gaza during the fighting. So did Egypt's prime minister. Finally, a delegation of foreign ministers from a number of Arab countries and Turkey made the journey to stand in solidarity with Haniyeh and Hamas. Abbas, meanwhile, was left to ponder alone in Ramallah. He has no authority in Gaza, a significant piece of the putative Palestinian state from which Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Hamas seized the territory from Abbas's Fatah in a violent coup more than five years ago. Abbas has been effectively barred from visiting Gaza for years, and was notably absent from the Arab League gathering in Cairo during the Hamas-Israel conflict. Will UN members consider which Palestinians Abbas actually represents when they vote on upgrading his delegation's status? Now, other regional leaders are craving the opportunity to visit Gaza. Turkey's Prime Minister,Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expects to visit in the coming days. He would be the first leader of a NATO member country to visit Hamas-ruled Gaza. And Iran, which provided much of Hamas's rocket and missile arsenal, has indicated that it wants to send representatives. Of course, none can make that journey without entering Gaza from Egypt. President Mohamed Morsi so far has eagerly cooperated. He may have given up Muslim Brotherhood membership when elected president, but you cannot take the Islamist group out of his mind and soul. Hamas, after all, is the Brotherhood's Palestinian relative. This groundswell of support for Hamas does not help Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who has made great strides in building infrastructure, while cooperating with Israelis, for an eventual Palestinian state. They are reviled by Hamas. It also contravenes United States and European Union designations of Hamas as a terrorist organization, one that is committed to Israel's annihilation. Divergent views among the world's nations regarding Hamas will further challenge the U.S., dealing with mounting political and security problems across the Middle East. Where do supposed Arab allies, such as Qatar, which enjoys U.S. military protection, really stand? The love affair with Hamas also raises questions about the potential for Arab world acceptance of Israel. On November 29, 1947, the UN adopted the historic resolution to partition the territory of British Mandatory Palestine into two states – one Jewish, one Arab – to exist side-by-side in peace and security. While the Arabs rejected the measure, the Jews accepted it and Israel was born. Sixty-five years later, only Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel, both achieved through direct negotiations. Abbas walked away from talks with Israel four years ago. Upgrading the status of Palestine at the UN will be a transitory victory for an increasingly beleaguered Abbas. It is an unhelpful diversion from the reality on the ground, the growing danger of a terrorist regime ensconced in Gaza that threatens Israel and any Palestinian who aspires to achieve sustainable peace. Kenneth Bandler is the American Jewish Committee's director of media relations.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Really? -- GQ names Romney 'Least Influential Person of 2012'

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Really? -- GQ names Romney 'Least Influential Person of 2012' Nov 29th 2012, 17:30 Every year, Gentleman's Quarterly magazine names its "25 Least Influential People." Tuesday, the magazine put Mitt Romney at the top of the list.  "Was anyone inspired by Mitt Romney? Did anyone vote enthusiastically for Mitt Romney? Of course not. Voting for Romney is like hooking up with the last single person at the bar at 4 a.m. The only successful thing he did this year was embody every black stand-up comedian's impression of a white person. Thank God the election's over. No more endless photos of Mitt staring winsomely off-camera with that attempted smile on his face. No more glaring campaign mishaps week after week after week. No more labored media efforts to make him look like anything other than Sheldon Adelson's pampered money Dumpster. Good-bye, Mitt. I hope you enjoy the rest of your life quietly ensconced at Lake Winnipesaukee, blissfully ignorant of the plight of anyone who doesn't have $300 million squirreled away in the Bahamas." As the loser in a hotly-contested presidential election, it's not surprising Romney might appear somewhere on this list – but at the top? I mean, the guy got over 59 million votes earlier this month. That's a lot more influence than GQ's number two pick, actress Amanda Bynes. For the entire year, when members of the media weren't focusing on the totally bogus Republican "War on Women" or ignoring the sorry state of the economy as well as what happened at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, they were totally trashing Romney's religious beliefs, his wife, his kids, and even a family dog he once put on the roof of his car. Since one of the goals of the Obama campaign team was to demonize the former Massachusetts governor rather than offer a vision and a plan for America's future, the president's obedient press were concentrated like a laser beam on him 24/7. By Election Day, so-called "journalists" had exposed more dirt on the man who wouldn't be president than we had heard about Obama's dealings with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, his felonious real estate developer Tony Rezko, and his America-hating Reverend Wright throughout the entire 2008 campaign combined. And any gaffe or misstep by Romney would receive more exposure than Madonna's naked derriere at a rock concert. At the same time, the media broke numerous vertebrae contorting themselves to avoid or make excuses for Obama's hideous first term record as well as any miscues by himself or his bumbling vice president. In the end, Romney received so much attention that a man was re-elected to the highest office in our land while millions of Americans remain hopelessly unemployed. If you don't think that's influence, you don't know what the meaning of the word is. In fact, I could make the case that Romney was the most influential person of 2012 as he was the brunt of a coordinated media assault responsible for the current White House resident getting four more years to enact an agenda that almost half the nation finds totally repugnant. Now that's what I call influence. Noel Sheppard is associate editor of the Media Research Center's NewsBusters.org. He welcomes feedback at NewsBustersNoel@gmail.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Why Democrats really want Republicans to cave on taxes

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Why Democrats really want Republicans to cave on taxes Nov 29th 2012, 10:00 Let's stipulate something about the current tussle at the edge of the fiscal cliff. President Obama and the Democrats and the media--the champions of expanding the public sector at the expense of the rest of us–are going to win, and the Republicans–the last remaining defenders of the private sector–are going to lose. Taxes will go up on upper-income Americans, and spending will continue to grow–and Republicans will glumly go along with it. But there are a couple things the GOP establishment might think about, before they capitulate. The goal of getting Republicans to agree to raise taxes is not to raise new revenues. After all, allowing the Bush tax rates to expire for wealthier Americans will bring in perhaps $67 billion a year; Warren Buffet's plan for a thirty percent minimum tax rate for millionaires another $5 billion. That's spit in the ocean compared to annual deficits of $1 trillion and counting–let alone a $16 trillion national debt. The real goal of getting Republicans to cave on taxes is to detach them from their Tea Party and conservative base, and wreck any chance of a repeat of 2010's GOP surge–not to mention recapturing the White House in 2016.  - And contrary to reports from the media, the goal isn't "to raise the morale of the middle class"by punishing the rich, or any such class warfare strategy. The real goal is to detach Republicans from their Tea Party and conservative base, and wreck any chance of a repeat of 2010's GOP surge–not to mention recapturing the White House in 2016.  What a Republican capitulation on taxes will really mean is a future of political defeats stretching out beyond the horizon, as a disheartened base either stays home or wages bitter Tea Party versus Establishment primary fights like the ones that cost them the Senate this year. But there's also more at stake than elections. What Obama and the Democrats are hoping is that GOP lawmakers will publicly abandon the no-new-taxes pledge they signed as part of their campaigns for office. The media like to blame  Grover Norquist for the pledge, but he was only the instrument, and his Americans for Tax Reform the vehicle, made for the purpose. The pledge was simply a solemn promise to voters that this Republican candidate at least, when he went to Washington, would not be party to stealing more from the private sector in order to grow the welfare state. The pledge isn't legally binding. As Vice President Al Gore would say, there's no governing legal authority enforcing it. The only thing involved is honor, and trust–the honor of the candidate who took the pledge to voters not to raise their taxes, and the trust of voters that this time, unlike with President George "Read My Lips" Bush, they wouldn't be betrayed again. Honor and trust. Breaking the no-tax pledge violates both–and it's hard to see how either ever comes back. And the Democrats know it. That's why they've focused on the pledge. They don't just want to take away Republicans' voters; they also want to destroy their sense of honor and integrity. They know it will make Republicans more compliant for future deals, and more alienated than ever from the voters they will need if they ever get another chance to salvage what's left of this country. "The greatest way to live with honor," the playwright Sophocles said, "is to be what we pretend to be." Republicans have pretended to be the party of no new taxes. Let's see them live up to it–and by saving their honor maybe they'll save us all. Historian Arthur Herman is the author of the just released "Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II" (Random House May 2012) and the Pulitzer Prize finalist book "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age" (Bantam, 2008).

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: In defense of Grover Norquist and his right to be wrong

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

In defense of Grover Norquist and his right to be wrong Nov 29th 2012, 10:15 I strongly disagree with Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pledge. But I believe his views are sincere. And I condemn those who substitute personal attacks on Norquist for factual arguments to prove him wrong. First, I don't get why my fellow Democrats and liberals blame Norquist for the "pledge" — rather than those who sign the pledge. Last time I looked, no one forced 285 members of Congress at gunpoint to sign the pledge prior to the November elections — 238 of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans. They freely signed a commitment to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses and to oppose net reductions or the elimination of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate. Second, why don't Democrats use facts to persuade voters that Grover Norquist and those who signed the pledge are wrong — and that history proves them so? - These members of Congress signed the pledge voluntarily, last time I looked. And if they change their minds, which they are allowed to do, they will be held accountable by the voters — or at least should be, if voters disagree with the change of position. Second, why don't we use facts to persuade voters that Norquist and those who signed the pledge are wrong — and that history proves them so? For example, let's look at the factual evidence of Bill Clinton's two terms to make our case. In 1993, anti-tax conservatives opposed President Clinton's tax increase of $500 billion (through increasing marginal rates).  Fact: That budget was passed in the House and the Senate without a single Republican member of either chamber voting for it.  Fact: Republicans took to the floor of both chambers and predicted that the Clinton tax increases would — as Grover Norquist now says about increasing taxes today — cause a recession and increased joblessness. Fact: They were proven wrong and Clinton was proven right. Clinton began his tenure in January 1993 with a $300 billion deficit and a slow economic recovery, and eight years later left office with a $1 trillion surplus, 23 million new jobs and a 65 percent approval rating — unprecedented for a second-term president. I also think Norquist is wrong because he gives too little weight to the economic and moral issues if America doesn't substantially pay down our $16 trillion national debt. If we don't adopt the across-the-board approach of Simpson-Bowles, I think America runs a serious risk of becoming another Greece, with a GDP exceeded by our national debt in the foreseeable future. For me, not addressing the national debt is also a moral issue. I have two younger children. I think it is flat-out immoral for today's generation of adults to use credit cards and hand over the receipts and tell our children and grandchildren (and probably, the way things are going, great-grandchildren) to pay the tab for our spending. That is my opinion. I think I am right. Norquist disagrees with me. He thinks I am wrong. I am willing to concede that Norquist might not be entirely wrong. I do worry about the recessionary effects of raising taxes in our already stagnant economy with unemployment nearly 8 percent. It won't kill me (or my fellow Democrats) to concede that Norquist might have a point about the risks of raising taxes at this particular time. But I don't need to attack Grover personally because I disagree with him. In fact, I know him and like him. He's a good dad, good husband and a good person, with tolerant views toward gay rights, civil rights and those who disagree with him. If more people in America were willing to disagree rather than personally attack someone with different political views, we might actually have a chance to solve problems rather than continue the red/blue polarization that has paralyzed Washington in recent years. I wish my fellow Democrats who personally attack Norquist would remember the words of President Clinton: "I hope that I'll live long enough to see American politics return to vigorous debates where we argue who's right and wrong, not who's good and bad." Lanny Davis is a Fox News contributor. He is the principal in the Washington law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, which also specializes in legal crisis management, served as President Clinton's special counsel from 1996-98 and as a member of President George W. Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (2006-07). He currently serves as Special Counsel to Dilworth Paxson and is a partner with Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in Purple Nation Solutions, a public affairs-strategic communications company. He is the author of the forthcoming book, "Crisis Tales – Five Rules for Handling Scandal in Business, Politics and Life," to be published by Simon & Schuster. He can be followed on Twitter at @LannyDavis.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Why Gitmo won't be closing during Obama's second term

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Why Gitmo won't be closing during Obama's second term Nov 29th 2012, 15:06 Get ready for Round 2 on Gitmo. Though President Obama failed in his high profile attempts to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay during his first term -- let alone within his first year per White House executive order, his Democratic allies in the Senate are raising the issue once again. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has stirred up the latest Gitmo closure rumors by ordering a Government Accountability Office report identifying all U.S. mainland detention facilities that might be suitable to taking in its 166 detainees. The senior California Senator seemed to be a Gitmo supporter at the outset, noting on a Jan. 2002 visit with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that its tropical breezes "sure beat lockdown at Folsom," the notorious prison a couple hours drive from her native San Francisco.  However in the years to follow, Feinstein became one of the chief proponents of closing Gitmo, introducing legislation in 2007 to shutter its doors, prompting fanciful discussions in the halls of Congress and the Pentagon about moving detainees to Alcatraz. Though President Obama failed in his high profile attempts to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay during his first term his Democratic allies in the Senate are raising the issue once again. - The latest trial balloon floated by Democrats has about as much chance of resulting in Gitmo's closure anytime soon as sending some of Al Qaeda's finest to Alcatraz did then. Why's that? First, though the GAO report identified 6 military facilities and 98 Justice Dept. facilities that could house detainees, there would have to be potentially billions of dollars spent on things like security upgrades, prison modifications, guard force training, and shuffling around military and/or civilian prisoners for a variety of laws and prison regulations. And more importantly, Congress has already outlawed transferring Gitmo detainees to the U.S. mainland, in large part to avoid scenarios where a myriad of judges could set them free on Main Street U.S.A.  With a House of Representatives still dominated by Republicans, overturning such laws seems highly unlikely. Feinstein's point of all this however, is predictably political.  The first quote of her press release issued on Wednesday says it all "This report demonstrates that if the political will exists, we could finally close Guantanamo without imperiling our national security." Like just about everything in Congress, it's more complicated than meets the eye. Though ordered years ago, Feinstein's GAO report has arrived just in time for the Senate to debate the Defense Department's authorization bill for next year. As Democrats have been unhappy with their hands tied on closing Gitmo through past authorization bills, their timing is perfect for conveniently newsworthy excuses on reasons to cut military spending.  The report cites Gitmo's cost at over $114 million a year, thus making an easy target for showing why defense budgets need trimming. And wow, are the Democrats ever looking for reasons to cut defense spending these days. With $480 billion in cuts already programmed from President Obama's first term, plus the White House-Congressionally mandated "sequestration" that kicks in automatically on Jan. 2nd for an additional roughly $500 billion - a grand total of $1 trillion will be slashed from the military and defense industry over the next decade.  Should those budget reductions go through as planned, we'll see the smallest and weakest military we've had since the 1970's.  Horses and bayonets notwithstanding. Significant defense cuts are familiar territory for Democrats, especially of the Northern California variety.  Literally.  San Francisco used to host a hub of military bases, now it's a virtual military ghost town. Should sequestration go through, we can expect a lot more places around the country to follow suit. But back to the timing of GAO report.  Putting this backburner issue in the public spotlight this week seems to be an awfully convenient way of distracting from more newsworthy controversies – like Benghazi, for instance. And speaking of Benghazi, with the worst intelligence community failure in exactly 11 years in not anticipating the terrorist attack, then botching the public explanation dragging down U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's shot at Secretary of State, doesn't Ms. Feinstein have more pressing things to do right now than worry about 166 Al Qaeda-linked detainees and if they'd be more comfortable in Gitmo, Kansas or Colorado? I'd be more comfortable if her priorities were on asking the hard questions on where the next Benghazi-style attack might happen so we can prevent it. I'm sure we'd all be better off. J.D. Gordon is a retired Navy Commander who served as a Pentagon spokesman in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2005-09. He is a communications consultant to several Washington, D.C.-based think tanks.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: What a Republican capitulation on taxes will really mean

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

What a Republican capitulation on taxes will really mean Nov 29th 2012, 10:00 Let's stipulate something about the current tussle at the edge of the fiscal cliff. President Obama and the Democrats and the media--the champions of expanding the public sector at the expense of the rest of us–are going to win, and the Republicans–the last remaining defenders of the private sector–are going to lose. Taxes will go up on upper-income Americans, and spending will continue to grow–and Republicans will glumly go along with it. But there are a couple things the GOP establishment might think about, before they capitulate. The goal of getting Republicans to agree to raise taxes is not to raise new revenues. After all, allowing the Bush tax rates to expire for wealthier Americans will bring in perhaps $67 billion a year; Warren Buffet's plan for a thirty percent minimum tax rate for millionaires another $5 billion. That's spit in the ocean compared to annual deficits of $1 trillion and counting–let alone a $16 trillion national debt. Republicans have pretended to be the party of no new taxes. Let's see them live up to their promises now. - And contrary to reports from the media, the goal isn't "to raise the morale of the middle class"by punishing the rich, or any such class warfare strategy. The real goal is to detach Republicans from their Tea Party and conservative base, and wreck any chance of a repeat of 2010's GOP surge–not to mention recapturing the White House in 2016.  What a Republican capitulation on taxes will really mean is a future of political defeats stretching out beyond the horizon, as a disheartened base either stays home or wages bitter Tea Party versus Establishment primary fights like the ones that cost them the Senate this year. But there's also more at stake than elections. What Obama and the Democrats are hoping is that GOP lawmakers will publicly abandon the no-new-taxes pledge they signed as part of their campaigns for office. The media like to blame  Grover Norquist for the pledge, but he was only the instrument, and his Americans for Tax Reform the vehicle, made for the purpose. The pledge was simply a solemn promise to voters that this Republican candidate at least, when he went to Washington, would not be party to stealing more from the private sector in order to grow the welfare state. The pledge isn't legally binding. As Vice President Al Gore would say, there's no governing legal authority enforcing it. The only thing involved is honor, and trust–the honor of the candidate who took the pledge to voters not to raise their taxes, and the trust of voters that this time, unlike with President George "Read My Lips" Bush, they wouldn't be betrayed again. Honor and trust. Breaking the no-tax pledge violates both–and it's hard to see how either ever comes back. And the Democrats know it. That's why they've focused on the pledge. They don't just want to take away Republicans' voters; they also want to destroy their sense of honor and integrity. They know it will make Republicans more compliant for future deals, and more alienated than ever from the voters they will need if they ever get another chance to salvage what's left of this country. "The greatest way to live with honor," the playwright Sophocles said, "is to be what we pretend to be." Republicans have pretended to be the party of no new taxes. Let's see them live up to it–and by saving their honor maybe they'll save us all. Historian Arthur Herman is the author of the just released "Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II" (Random House May 2012) and the Pulitzer Prize finalist book "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age" (Bantam, 2008).

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Republicans and taxes

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Republicans and taxes Nov 29th 2012, 05:00 When President Obama won re-election last month by a larger margin than even his most fervent supporters had expected, though with fewer popular votes than he received in 2008, most commentators initially opined that not much had changed in Washington. The president would remain in the White House for another four years, the Democrats would keep control of the Senate, and the House would stay in Republican hands. Most Republicans re-elected to both houses of Congress had publicly pledged not to vote to raise taxes under any circumstances. And most of those Republicans have adhered to that promise -- until now. Over the Thanksgiving weekend, the false congressional fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party began to reveal their true selves. Led by the Republican presidential standard bearer in 2008, Arizona Sen. John McCain, at least a half-dozen Republican members of Congress have renounced their public promises never to vote to raise taxes. In the case of Sen. Bob Corker, (R-Tenn.), Congressman and Senator-elect Jeff Flake, (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Peter King, (R-NY), they had re-stated their promises, directly or indirectly, as recently as last month during their successful campaigns. Did they blatantly dupe the voters? Did they genuinely change their minds? Did they ever sincerely accept the pro-freedom anti-tax logic? The Founders certainly embraced the pro-freedom anti-tax logic, as they gave us a Constitution that barred the federal government from imposing any direct tax on any persons. That was part of the genius of the document. If the feds really needed cash, they'd need to tax the states. If the states were feeling over-taxed, they could block federal taxes in the Senate, where for 135 years senators were chosen by state governments as delegates to the Senate, rather than elected by voters. This procedure, too, was part of the Founders' genius. It came about in order to assure a place at the federal table for the states, many of which were older than the federal government and all of which retained their sovereignty when they voluntarily joined the union. This procedure for choosing senators was also a check on the growth of the federal government. Those constitutional provisions were cast aside during the progressive era about 100 years ago, when, during a period of just five years, the Constitution was amended so that the states lost their place at the federal table and Congress could tax incomes, and the feds got a new printing press for cash in the form of the Federal Reserve. I have described this dreadful time in our history in my new book, "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom." They did so by inverting the concept of limited government. With the exception of Abraham Lincoln, every president from George Washington to TR's predecessor, William McKinley, accepted the truism that the federal government is one of limited powers, and it may only in engage in behavior that is specifically authorized by the Constitution or reasonably inferable therefrom. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who ran against each other and who hated each other, turned this value on its head. They jointly argued that the Constitution does not mean what it says and is not the Supreme Law of the Land as it states. They held that the federal government can do whatever it wishes unless those wishes are expressly prohibited by the Constitution. For 100 years, the Republican Party resisted the progressive onslaught. As recently as this past election just a few weeks ago, Republicans argued that increased tax revenue, whether from increased tax rates or from decreased tax deductions, effectively moves wealth from the productive sector and delivers it to the consuming sector – which would be the government. This argument is really one of the basic laws of economics, so why are Republicans now rejecting it? I suspect that they are drunk with power and have concluded that they -- just like Obama did -- can assure their re-elections, their continued possession of governmental power, if they deliver bigger pieces of the federal pie to the folks back home. Stated differently, they are unwilling to address a system that soon will deliver more in entitlement payments and interest payments on government debt than it collects in revenue by reducing the entitlements, shrinking the government, cutting the debt, returning to the confines of the Constitution and letting hardworking Americans retain what is theirs. Instead, they now want to raise federal taxes. They would be unwise to try to pull this off -- and would be wise to recall recent history. The last Republican president to pledge "Read my lips. NO NEW TAXES" and then violate that promise was dispatched by the voters to a hotel suite in Houston, rather than to four more years in the White House. I bet George Herbert Walker Bush today would stick to his pledge. Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is " It is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »