Power vs. Popularity, as written 8/29/2009

Ever since we have fallen away from the doctrines of isolationism, America has been known as the lone superpower in the world. When after 40 years the Soviet Union stood down in the face of a stronger, more cunning opponent, America continued to rise above the fray and came to the aid of our allies to defeat the threats that attempted to overpower them. But as administrations come and go, policy shifts according to ideology and in the current political torrent affecting our country, popularity and placating to the world have become our rhetoric of choice abroad.

The days of exerting our view candidly and consistently have gone to the wayside. Over the past months, the administration has taken sides in Honduras, but not with the people in Iran, did not take action against provocation by North Korea, has attempted to reprimand our staunchest ally, stating they will be left to defend themselves on the occurrence of a first strike to protect themselves from Iran, but the administration has also attempted to dictate terms of Israeli domestic policy. These are all situations that exemplify a time when a different reaction was expected from the United States by both our friends and enemies.

During World War I and World War II, America sat on the sidelines for many of the battles, not assisting other countries whose soldiers and citizens were being killed. The idea was that ‘this is their war’ but we found that innate sense that our fellow man is dying and we are doing nothing, so we heeded the calls and came back victorious in our endeavors.

Fundamental isolationism still exists and many would like to see it regain its influence in both our foreign and domestic policy. Cutting the defense budget and allocating more funds to social programs for some, or cutting the defense spending to limit the expanse of our government internationally without using the funds for more government spending. Willful ignorance is the phrase that best describes those who do not see the need for our own defenses but relying on the United Nations to “keep the peace”. Interestingly, the United Nations members can never agree when it comes to assessing who an enemy is because each country represented in the UN are protecting their own national interests and friendships. When North Korea began launching missiles in April, China was slow to position itself against the country whom it is the sole provider for its sustenance. When the Bush administration went to the United Nations in 2002 and 2003, they fought for resolutions against Iraq but found it hard due to the self dealing of those countries who were benefiting from Iraq’s sanctions. Beyond the malfeasance of the organization, International consensus will seldom fall in favor of the United States.

To pursue popularity, as in the United Nations is to the detriment of our security. America has never been afraid to speak strongly and act in ways to back up our rhetoric. But for now, the strong and tough talk by the United States will be silenced to allow the countries who have not fought for their own peace or the dictatorial heads of certain countries to set the course. Exerting our power and influence has been coined as “arrogant” and “derisive” by President Barack Obama. And to much of our dismay, our policies towards the “Axis of Evil” are changing to fall in line with this new sense of world community. North Korea recently enjoyed the presence of former President Bill Clinton and Iran is still within the agenda of the Secretary of State.

To admit weakness or trepidation before a crucial task speaks of the ill-confidence held for a mission. We are currently fighting two wars, that regardless of your view of their legitimacy, American soldiers are protecting civilians against an enemy that has no uniform and is not afraid to die, often threatening America and wishing ill upon our way of life.

Showing weakness is a provocative action in itself. September 11, 2001, America had weak spots that the terrorists exploited for their gain, but at the expense of 2,977 American lives. In Afghanistan, as focus has been drawn from Iraq, the death toll of American troops in a month has increased to it’s highest since the start of the war, signaling the need for a battle plan for victory, a word that is not well received in the current administration. In Iraq, as our troops withdrew from the cities per the Status of Forces Agreement, the Iraqi Security Forces have taken control of their streets patrolling and foiling plots of the insurgents who wish for their democracy to fail. Last week, a deadly attack was launched in Iraq killing over 95 people, a sign that many accredit to “losing the war” but I tend to see it differently. Compared to the levels of casualties over the last few years, the numbers have dropped significantly and Iraq is on its way to complete sovereignty. Being delivered from a tyrant who kept his people in dire fear for their lives from him and from the actions that his own actions could bring upon them, the Iraqi people are safer today and many are thankful.

Progress has been made and the battles will be won, but not on the notion of exhibiting doubt or even the thought of exhibiting satisfaction without victory.

The popularity of America has been said to have fallen over the past eight years, and that point of view is right to a certain extent, but we embraced our values and did not falter even in the times of pain and suffering our country has been subjected to. American exceptionalism, we have something to exhibit pride for, we live in the greatest country founded on the basis of the advancement of freedom and liberty.

There is a reason why we exhibit much power in the world, it is not popularity and international consensus that makes our country great, it is our ability to stand up for what we believe is right and what is good for all. Standing up for freedom and helping those who are oppressed, and we have no apologies.

Aritcle as published in the College Republicans at UTA September Newsletter

Article as published in the Texas College Republicans Newsletter

Beyond our Borders as written on 7/29/2009

With all this debate on health care, “cap and trade”, Sarah Palin, and other topics found broadcast on the news every fifteen minutes, there seems to be lacking something. Where has the foreign policy gone? You may hear an excerpt from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton every now and then, but what happened to North Korea and Iran.

Last week when Secretary Clinton attended a meeting of southeast Asian nations in Phuket, Thailand, a North Korean foreign minister commented about Secretary Clinton, “she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping,” and also saying, she “...is by no means intelligent” and calling her a “funny lady”. To be fair, they were never kind towards the Bush Administration either.

North Korea, a nation who in the past four months has displayed it’s missile capabilities by launching short, medium, and long-ranged missiles, and who also tested it’s nuclear capability underground. Now they are name calling? Sounds like the school bully who makes fun of you, causes you to flinch, but the question is, do they have the power and capabilities they proclaim to? Does the bully have the strength to shove you in your locker?

It is no secret that North Korea has an army numbering over one-million soldiers. Let’s add it up: a lot of soldiers, can fire missiles into allied territory, may possible have nuclear capabilities, and they are somewhat provoking action with missile launches and name calling. It sounds like someone is trying to keep an enemy at bay with a show of potential force and childish rhetoric.

In 1993, when President George H.W. Bush was visiting the Middle East and there came information of a potential attack on his motorcade by Saddam Hussein. What did we do, we launched a few cruise missiles at them in a punitive attack letting him know that such behavior would not be tolerated.

Now, before anyone says I am trying to say that we should strike North Korea because they made fun of Hillary Clinton, let me say, no. But I do feel that they have gotten away with too much over the last few months when their actions have shown to be hostile to neighboring countries and the problem is just with the government there, not it’s people.

But in Iran, you are dealing with a group of people who are still rallying in the streets, protesting the results of the election, the news coverage of that also died down when the media realized there would not be a change in the Iranian government, brought on by its own people. The coverage of the rallies was somewhat historic as we were able to see the atrocities that were being waged upon the protestors. Reality is that we are still dealing with a country whose leader has called for the extermination of Israel, has the capability to wage such an attack, as it has also shows with it’s missile capabilities, and who looks to the west with disgust and abhorrence.

Domestic issues are important to us, but what is also important is what is going on outside of our borders, and how it effects our present and our future.

Article as published in the College Republicans at UTA August Newsletter

The General's know best as written on 9/29/2009

The Afghan War began on October 7, 2001 launching Operation Enduring Freedom to find Osama bin Laden, disarm and destroy al Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban government from power for harboring the terrorist organization.

The war is not over. An increase in troop levels is required to combat the resilient insurgency and help build the confidence of the Afghan people. A new strategy needs to be adopted to protect the population and defeat the insurgency.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, intelligence reports from the Middle East and South Asia pointed to Afghanistan and al Qaeda as being behind the attacks.

Eight years later, after the fall of the Taliban and free elections, Afghanistan is still rampant with insurgents.

President Obama has followed through with his campaign promise focusing on Afghanistan by increasing troop levels in March by 21,000. On March 27, he said the new strategy was to, “Disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” and relayed a message to the terrorists, “We will defeat you.”

Taking such a hard-line on Afghanistan only weeks after his inauguration was a campaign promise Obama planned to keep when he classified Afghanistan as a war of necessity. But that hard-line is slowing eroding.

We must win in Afghanistan —our peace and our security depend on it. That notion as expressed by Obama in that speech is also felt by General Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander of the United States Forces in Afghanistan and the International Security Assistance Force. McChrystal released the “Commander’s Initial Assessment,” on August 30, laying out the current situation and the strategy for Afghanistan going forward.

The plan and conditions advocate implementing a “significant change,” in strategy, making sure the forces on the ground have the resources needed for success. “Time matters; we must act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress.”

The strategy needs adjusting, and according to McChrystal, the answer is a surge in troop levels to combat the insurgency in the most troubled provinces and increase training at all levels of the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF). The strategy Obama laid out in March included the acceleration of the growth of the ANSF to 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 by 2011. For success in Afghanistan, these increased troop levels are needed for the police and Afghan troop levels to be realized over the next sixteen months.. To put an Afghan face on the war, coordinating NATO and ISAF forces within ANSF for increased training is needed.

The Current troop levels in Afghanistan include 35,000 NATO troops and 65,000 American troops. General McChrystal has requested an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops to help counter the insurgents. I understand no immediate decision made based on the stress it could pose overall on the United States Military, but time is running out. Everyday a decision is not made means further delay for positioning the forces in strategic victory and the possibility of more lives lost.

The Afghan people currently have a “crisis in confidence” with the Afghan government due to corruption and inability to provide basic services to citizens, including security. The perception of the Afghan people is being won by the insurgents whose arguments are fueled by the eight years we have inhabited Afghanistan. To win their confidence, the government and coalition forces must be seen as combating the insurgency and providing for the people. Operate within each community, learn the language, assist in providing services, and earn their trust. Once an area is cleared of insurgents, the area must be held by a number of troops to keep the insurgents from inhabiting that community and continue to terrorize and threaten its people.

Mr. President, take direction from the generals. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, General Petreaus, General McChrystal, and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen - all men who have the experience and tactical training to make this decision based on the proper assumptions and metrics. Before a situation in Iran can be acknowledged and implemented, the war in Afghanistan must be stabilized with an adequate counterinsurgency strategy.

I argue that Afghanistan is at a breaking point, much like Iraq in 2005 and 2006. President Obama acknowledged has that the strategy of the past eight years was not working but the current security force remains weak and ineffective.

With the current Afghani government in question due to election fraud, they are unable to produce tangible results in the eyes of the Afghan people. The current economy is weak, and the rule of law is lacking and not enforced due to the spread of insurgents throughout the different provinces. The insurgency, Taliban forces, and al Qaeda feed off of the lack of confidence of the people.

As General McChrystal stated, “time matters”. Someone will be defeated, and we have the choice to adopt a strategy that will ensure that those who will be defeated will not be the American or coalition forces, or the citizens of Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is at a critical point, the campaign is over and it is time to supply the troops and the ANSF with the sufficient resources and manpower for a strategic victory.

Article as published in The Shorthorn

Article as published in the College Republicans at UTA October Newsletter

Rest in Peace, Senator Kennedy as written 8/27/2009

There are not many politicians in Washington, DC today with the characteristics of Senator Ted Kennedy. Although I did not agree with his politics and some of the causes he trumpeted, he was a man who stood for what he believed in.

A man who proudly accepted the label of being a liberal, quoting his brother, President John F. Kennedy saying, “... if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people. If that is what they mean by a liberal, I am proud to be a liberal.”

With that in mind, he was a staunch advocate in the 1960’s for civil rights, he was a man who championed education, carried the torch for financial aid means for college students, and was someone who rallied for healthcare as a right for all Americans.

Just like his brothers, he had his own ill-dealings in his personal life and that is something that he had to deal with for many years, but that should not be what we remember about him.

I had the opportunity to meet Senator Kennedy in February of 2008 when he came to campaign for then Senator Barack Obama in San Antonio. There are not many in my generation, let alone my party, who can proudly say that they shook the hand of Ted Kennedy and got to speak with him briefly.

In August of 2008 during the Democratic National Convention, I think Caroline Kennedy summed it up best when she said

“If you're no longer being denied a job because of your race, gender or disability, or if you've seen a rise in the minimum wage you're being paid, Teddy is your senator too.

If your children are receiving health care thanks to the Children's Health Insurance Program...If your child is getting an early boost in life through Head Start, or attending a better school or can go to college because a Pell grant has made it more affordable, Teddy is your senator too.”

The Kennedy name has been synonymous in politics since the early part of the 20th century when the father of Ted Kennedy, Joseph P. Kennedy, was the U.S Ambassador to Great Britain during World War II, brother John F. Kennedy being a member of Congress then elected President, brother Robert F. Kennedy was Attorney General in the Kennedy Administration then elected Senator of New York and began his run for the Presidency in 1968, and 47 years in the United States Senate, Edward M. Kennedy, the “Lion of the left”.

The Kennedy name comprising over a quarter of the history of the United States, regardless of your party or your personal feelings on the personal matters of the Kennedy family, there were many issues they confronted for the American people, and legislatively, Senator Kennedy accomplished many things that have helped to better many lives.

In 2008, Ted Kennedy ended his speech at the Democratic National Committee saying, “There is a new wave of change all around us, and if we set our compass true, we will reach our destination... The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on.”

Rest in peace, Senator Kennedy.

Article as written in The Shorthorn

Cash for Clunkers? as written on 8/9/2009

Did you get your new and more fuel efficient car yet? Not going to
take advantage of the "Cash for Clunkers" legislation that was passed
a few weeks back to help people get into more fuel efficient cars? Oh,
you already took advantage of the $4500 tax credit and got yourself a
new ride? You are welcome. Anyone who takes advantage of that program
should be thanking the taxpayers who actually have to pay taxes into
the federal government.

I never agreed with this program, although it has helped the auto
industry. Ford reported a 55% jump in sales thanks to the program but
out of the top selling models under the program, only one was American
made, the Ford Focus. Wouldn't you think that after the government
aided bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM that maybe they should have
stipulated that the cars should be American made? I am no fan of
protectionism, nor was I a fan of the "Cash for Clunkers" program
either, but what better way to spur the American economy than to
stimulate and sell American made inventory. The UAW would have been
happy, the tax payer would be happy to see profit coming out of the
industry they put billions into over the past eight months.

But that is just one of the problems with the "clunkers" program. Once
these vehicles are traded into the dealers and they fill out 22 pages
of paperwork, they must disengage the engine to no longer be operable
and the vehicle gets hauled off to the junk yard. Now that is
government efficiency. Instead of donating the cars to be used by
those unable to have a car, the car gets destroyed. Right now, we are
still in a recession, millions of Americans are still unemployed and
there is not a sign that unemployment will let up anytime soon.

The point in the program was to help get older, less efficient cars
off the road and to help car sales which had been falling over the
past few quarters. Many of the cars that have been traded-in were paid
for, I am assuming and were old enough to where the owner may have
only been carrying liability insurance. Under that assumption, the
discount that many of these people ran to take advantage of, put them
under a new automobile loan and higher insurance. Depending on the
financial situation of those consumers and one of their desires to
take advantage of the program was to lower their fuel costs. Did it
really? Now being assessed a higher insurance premium for full
coverage on top of a new loan, who really won financially? I would go
even further to say that there is a high possibility that we could be
bailing out a few of these consumers a few months or a year down the
road when they can not make the payment for their new car.

This program may have provided temporary financial relief to a few,
and to help slightly reduce the emissions of carbon-dioxide pollution
from automobiles, but should the government play that role in our
society? This $1 billion program has burnt through it’s original
allocation of funding and required another infusion of $2 billion to
keep it going into the fall. That is $3 billion of tax payer funded
giveaway to fund a few program to benefit only a small portion of the
public. I guess one could call it a small redistribution that will
have only a minute net-effect for the consumer when you get to the
bottom line.

Article as written in The Shorthorn

Mission not-so Accomplished? As written 7/23/2009

Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama held a press conference to help
clear up a few of the questions and qualms that people have with the
idea of health care reform and the current proposed legislation to
further that cause. I do not believe that he can hang the “Mission
Accomplished” banner just yet.

The “Blue Dog” Democrats are causing a stir because the legislation in
the House of Representatives does not reflect their core principal of
fiscal responsibility. The Congressional Budget Office Director
Douglas Elmendorf announced last week that the proposed House
legislation would actually “keep costs rising at an unsustainable
rate,” which goes against the main call for reform being the rising
health care costs. Within the last two weeks, according to Rasmussen
Reports, opposition to health care reform has grown from 45% to now
53% of the American people.

I understand that the President should not shift with the political
winds, but when a majority of Americans, according to most polling
data, are against the idea, maybe this is not something the American
people are looking for. Yes, a majority of Americans voted for
“change” but I believe that America is trying to say “thanks, but no
thanks,” in this particular case. Not to say that we do not need
reform in health care but rather the ideas that are being presented do
not provide the real reform that people are looking for.

"For those naysayers and cynics who think that this is not going to
happen, don't bet against us," Obama said according to a July 13
article in USA Today.
Mr. President, the numbers show that a majority of the country is
against you on this.
Many of the objections arise from the question of how will this reform
be paid for? Currently it has been proposed in the House that those
households making over $1 million will pay a 5.4% surtax to cover the
cost. That is an amount that in some states would put them paying over
half of their income in Federal and State taxes. So if this is the
case, those of you who are not fans of Donald Trump, Mark Cuban, and
others who help to create the jobs that you as Americans are given the
opportunity to work at, thank you. I guess it is only right to make
those who have the ability to pay for your health care. That sort of
sounds like another famous person who said “From each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs.” That man was Karl Marx.

"It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the
option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it," Obama said.
Thanks for giving me the choice to keep my health insurance, Mr.
President. I am glad I still have that freedom but am worried that you
telling me that I am “allowed” this freedom that maybe eventually that
freedom may be taken away.

Mr. President, what is your plan B?

As written in The Shorthorn

Where is the right to oppose? as written 7/13/2009

Dissent is the greatest tool we carry when dealing with the
encroachment of the government. Albeit disagreeing with the war,
fiscal policies, or policies in general. One could even say differing
in views from someone else is a right that is becoming even more
unpopular.

After the Iraq War began, people were said to be unpatriotic if they
had a negative view of the war, now you are unpatriotic if you do not
want the policies of President Obama to succeed, Un-American even.

My point of view is not often well received and even mocked because it
differs from someone of a different ideological persuasion. I thought
in America we were still allowed to have open discussion and
intelligent debate over issues. But to my discouragement, I was wrong
and in fact nurturing a view that is different from some is
unacceptable.

Some may forget, it was dissent from what was viewed as a tyrannical
government that led to the formation of this great country.

Beginning after the inauguration, a historic day, citizens began to
rise-up and protest the proposed spending and policies of President
Barack Obama. Some found it abhorrent that people would come out
against the ever-so popular President. They even dismissed the
protests on April 15, 2009 where only about 250,000 people came out in
protest but during the the Bush administration, every anti-war protest
got prime-time media coverage. On July 4, over 37,000 Texans gathered
in the DFW area to once again protest those same policies that are
viewed as a stranglehold on the economy and the taxpayer.

The beauty in our political process and even in today’s 24-hour news
cycle is that both sides can always present their view and spread it
to other sources in a matter of minutes.

But I am not to say that this is a left vs. right problem but an
overall issue with both sides who readily claim victim when the other
side is in power.

It is not unpatriotic to protest the war, outrageous spending either
with the Bush administration or the current Obama administration, the
Federal Reserve, abortion, or even the use of taxpayer dollars in ways
you disagree with, however, I do feel that it is unpatriotic to not
hold both sides to the same standards.

The purpose of the media is to present the news of the day and often
hold those involved accountable. We can’t complain about President
Barack Obama’s use of taxpayer dollars to go to New York for date
night without talking about the trips taken by President George Bush
to Crawford, TX. There is a double-standard in place and it must be
removed to bring fairness and unbiased presentation back to the news.

The weathering of certain rights must stop but the coddling of
President Obama and blatant endorsement of his policies in the media
need to be measured and alterations made. It should be about the
issues and presenting them to the people and not making personal
attacks and advancing an agenda.

As written in The Shorthorn

Political Apathy is Outdated as written on 7/6/2009

The issue I see with students these days is the apathy felt in the
political realm. The other issue I see is the ignorance of some
students who do vote for the wrong reasons. It is not about being a
Democrat, Republican, Independent, or a Libertarian, it is about being
informed and knowing why you vote the way you do. It is not about the
popularity of a candidate as it is about the issues. Economic,
domestic, and foreign policy are the basis in which we should measure
a candidate.

Political affiliation is almost like a circle in which one spectrum in
the circle falls under complete government control, equal
distribution, i.e. socialism, and the other spectrum falls under no
government control, or anarchism. But these really are not terms that
are necessarily used to describe parties in mainstream America.
Liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Moderate or
Independent, and the term Libertarian are all synonymous to political
pundits and commentators to refer to their own ideology or that of
their detractors. Generally, all of these fall somewhere along that
circle and each reflects a common view with the other. But within each
of these classifications are other terms to reflect an even further
core of beliefs, such as conservatives. Conservatives are also divided
into neoconservative, paleoconservative, and the traditional
conservative, but that is neither here nor there.

The point is, regardless of your affiliation, you should know what you
believe and why you believe it. Whether you consider yourself pro-life
or pro-choice, your view on gun rights, entitlements, welfare, and
whether your believe America should have an interventionist foreign
policy or one of isolationism, know where you stand.

We are at a pivotal moment in our history, beyond the election of the
first African-American President, our nation is constantly changing
and very important issues are being raised and will be raised in the
future that will effect the direction of this great country.

Pick up a book, read a newspaper, political apathy or political
stupidity are no longer “hip” but rather outdated in a climate that
aroused a large number of students to cast their votes this past
election. Regardless of what ideology you may align yourself with when
you conclude your political curiosity, just find it. There are plenty
of people out there who are looking for people to fall into alignment
with a cult-like mentality of followers. Avoid that. Do not be one of
those who drones on talking points without knowing the real facts, but
rather look at an issue objectively and draw your own conclusions.

Article as written in The Shorthorn

The Climate Tax from 7/1/2009

With wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the North Koreans provoking the
world, and the instabilities in Iran, the biggest threat to the United
States is CARBON DIOXIDE. We should thank Al Gore for his wonderful
advertising campaign, An Inconvenient Truth, for convincing the world
that CO2 is killing the Earth. With the ice caps on the brink of
melting and polar bears running out of ice to play on, we are in
trouble. The land masses of our planet will be overrun with water and
millions of people will drown. I suggest you buy a boat, or if you are
Al Gore and worry about the emission of CO2, buy a private jet, a
yacht and live in a mansion that uses enough electricity in a month to
power 10 average american households. Hypocrisy.

Al Gore sat in Tennessee and made phone call after phone call to
members of congress, trying to convince them to vote for the Cap and
trade bill on June 26th. Even with the firepower of Al Gore, Nancy
Pelosi, and with huge support from the Obama Administration, the bill
barely squeaked through the finish line to be passed. The vote was
219-212. 44 Democrats voted against it but sadly, 8 Republicans voted
for it, helping to push it through.

We live in the state of Texas, where oil and natural gas are abundant,
domestic resources that can be used to produce energy. Off our shores
there are massive amounts of resources to be used. If the problem is
with our importing of foreign sources, we can fill that void with the
use of domestic sources as mentioned and also nuclear energy. The
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is said to be about
jobs and moving America away from CO2 emitting forms of energy. It
truly is a noble cause but based upon lies.

During the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama touted the
creation of green collar jobs in the renewable energies sector. The
question is how does that effect the current jobs held by
non-renewable energy sector employees? The answer, greatly. Many
different studies have shown that this bill will cost over a million
jobs due to the inability for some firms to operate in the new
business climate that this “Climate” bill creates and a number of jobs
will be lost as the carbon caps hamper refineries and coal plants. All
this in the name of the “global climate crisis”.

I do not want to rant about questioning the science of “global
warming” when the other half of the scientific field disagree with
their findings, but we should not allow unproven science be the basis
for legislation that will effect all Americans.

Thank you House of Representatives for creating jobs in China and
India because with this legislation, employers will be forced to close
shop in America and go to places that will not hinder their
productivity. Until there is agreed participation by the rest of the
world’s industrial powers, this legislation should not be voted on by
the Senate.

Article as written in The Shorthorn