Obama Campaign: Romney's a Wimp, Ya, Ya, Ya, Ya

The Obama campaign has indeed been reduced to a very low denominator.  And, the leftist press joins in the Democratic Party's attempt to paint the Republican candidate as some sort of oaf, when it is their behavior that is truly offish.

Romney's remarks to Brian Williams during their interview in London prior to the start of the Olympics were entirely reasonable and appropriate.  Brian asked Romney for his assessment of the how things looked to him as regards to the preparedness of the British Olympics organizers.  Romney responded by saying that according to others in Great Britain there might be some shortage of police and other possible weaknesses.

There was nothing wrong with his remarks other than that they might possibly informed American viewers of what Londoners were already well aware of.  There is of course the possibility that perhaps Romney would have been better served by having said nothing other than offering some empty phrases.  But, that's the Obama style, not Romney's.  Hurray for Romney.

In Israel, Romney proclaimed Jerusalem to be Israel's capital.  That of brought the liberals, the anti-Semites and the Chinese, who beleaguer Tibet, together in their condemnation of Romney.  Was that a bad thing?  Muslims will say, yes.  I say, hurray for Romney.

And, finally, in Poland, Romney was absolutely tone-perfect.  Lech Valensa favored him with words of encouragement.  The press couldn't stand it.  Despite the fact that the Polish ceremony was situated in a cemetery, the press behaved like boors. Indeed, they acted more like Obama sponsored thugs than responsible members of the fourth estate.  Once again, hurray for Romney.

The Arguments Against Reelecting Obama

Everyone has their own list of things they feel merit their voting for, or against, some individual.  Here is what has decided me to vote against Obama:

One, the economy and jobs.  Bush may not have been all that helpful in sustaining the American economy.  Clinton may have been far better.  But, Obama is a disaster. He has given absolutely no support to the Simpson-Bowles commission.  (A commission that Obama, to his credit, appointed.)  It is currently the best blueprint America has for working its way out of our current malaise and keeping us from going over a financial cliff sometime in the not very distant future.

Paul Ryan, a Republican over in the House, had his financial bill passed.  It may be a good plan, or a lousy plan, but it's on he table.  Harry Reid, over in the Senate, has allowed no plan to be put forward by his fellow Democrats.  He claims that, if he were to do so, the Republicans would only filibuster it.  Maybe that's true.  But, it's no reason not to set forth a plan.  And, it is noteworthy that Obama has put no pressure on Reid to have his members put out a plan.

And, we know the reason for this situation; namely, that any plan would involve a degree of short term economic pain.  You can't set a broken arm without some pain, and you certainly can't turn our economy around without doing some work on our entitlements.

So, why haven't I mentioned jobs?  Because jobs are a function of the economy.  They're not something that operates independently from the economy.  Develop a good economy and you'll get jobs.  Let the economy go to hell and jobs will surely follow.

Two, Obama's energy policy.  Obama's desire to kill off the growth of hydrocarbon use is doing enormous harm to (a) our economy and (b) to our standing among nations.  Let's take (a) first.  Show me a sound workable solar set up and I'll be the first to applaud.  Ditto wind, tides, nuclear, whatever.  But, in the foreseeable future America, and most other nations, will have to rely heavily on hydrocarbons; more specifically,  on oil.

Obama has not given permits for drilling on land or waters under federal control.  He says that we today have pumped out more oil during his administration than ever before.  And, that's true.  But, it has had nothing to do with his administration.  It's because private companies have drilled aggressively wherever federal approval was not required.

Even more egregiously, he has not to allowed the laying of the XL pipeline from Canada to Texas.  This has badly crimped our ability to free ourselves from dependance on oil from places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria.  Also, it has chilled our relations with Canada which must now plan for a far more expensive pipeline to its west coast so it can ship the oil to China.  Does any of this make any sense?

The Obama administration argues that a pipeline down to Texas might develop a leak.  Sure, anything is possible.  But, we have hundreds of miles of pipeline crossing our country.  We know exactly how unlikely such an event would be.  It's like saying we won't let planes fly over the state of Illinois because maybe some plane will come crashing down into Illinois.

Third, Mexico, America, and Mexicans.  There are really only two issues here; namely, America's sovereignty and illegals whether they be Mexicans or other Latin Americans.  Firstly, a sovereign nation must control it's borders.  This country has enemies who clearly intend to do us harm.  We know this.  We know that agents are sent to do us damage.  Defending our borders seems obvious.  But, not to Obama.  He makes jokes.  He says the Republicans want to dig a moat and then, with a chuckle, adds "and fill it with alligators."  Is that how Israel is securing its border with the Sinai?  Of course not.

What Obama is really doing is once again playing politics.  He's telling the illegal Mexicans, we Democrats have your back.  You don't want to vote for those nasty ol' Republicans.

But wouldn't it be better for both the illegals and for Americans to have a reasonable solution worked out to solve a very real problem.  A few Republicans might object (a few in any group will object to anything), but I am confident that if Republicans and Democrats sat down together as John McCain and Ted Kennedy tried to do some years back, they could come up with a solution.  Sure, the Mexicans shouldn't have come here as illegals, but most have demonstrated their love of this country and their willingness to work hard for their families.  We're truly lucky to have most of them here.  And, don't we share some blame for not having had a secure border?  Let's do what we should have done long ago.  One problem with this idea; there's no gain for the Democrats to be seen working with the Republicans, even if it is in the best interest of everyone except the politicians.

Finally, Obama's all flash and no substance.  No doubt our medical delivery systems needs considerable improvement.  But, Obamacare is far from the answer.  Our educational system needs considerable improvement.  Again, far more is needed than Arne Duncan's prescription which seems to consist of giving exemptions from the No-Child-Let-Behind law to states on a selective basis.

Finally, there is Obama's divisiveness.  For him, it's the poor versus the rich.  It's main street, versus Wall Street.  And, if Wall Street becomes old news, it's the mean old banks or hedge funds.  His administation wants what is good -- it's the contentious Congress that's bad.  It's the bad old lobbyist bribing Congressmen (as though he wasn't taking money from people counting on him to further their private agendas.)  His hands are clean.  He leads from behind.

America needs something better.

The Palestinian Future -- One State or Two

It's amazing how a nonsensical idea can gain traction if someone thinks it can be used to their benefit.  That's never been more true than the one-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Consider, first, the two-state solution and why it is unlikely to become a reality.  Laying the cards on the table, we see that the major centers of the Palestinian people are in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jordan.  Gaza residents chose Hamas over Fatah, not so much because they were Islamists, although many were, but because Fatah was seen as being corrupt.  The Islamists now in power have one goal; namely, to eliminate Israel, and for this purpose the Iranians are funding Gaza's purchase of weapons.  One way, or another, Israel must, sooner or later, end the rockets and the sniper fire on Israeli citizens coming out of Gaza.

Then there's Jordan with its very large population of Palestinians, i.e. most Jordanians are Palestinians.  But, the Palestinians find it convenient to keep this reality from becoming too overt.  People might begin suggesting either that Jordan and the West Bank merge and become one, or ask themselves why they should focus on the West Bank when the Palestinians already possess Jordan?  This wouldn't play well for Abbas and the other current leaders in the West Bank.

The current struggle to create a Palestinian nation is the entire reason de etra for successive Palestinian leaders.  It's their basis for seeking outside funding.  It's why Palestinian leaders including Abbas have turned down the many offers made by various Israeli leaders for peace.  Indeed, it's something that has escaped our supposedly brilliant ex-past prime ministers; most notably, Ehud Olmert.  (Talk about someone wanting to give away the store!)

Does this mean the only option left is to a one-state solution?  If West Bank Palestinians want to live in limbo, or some self created purgatory, that's their business.  Any number of intermediate arrangements are possible.  Consider Puerto Rico.  The U.S. has offered them (1) their independence, or (2) statehood as a part of the U.S. or, (3) the commonwealth status they currently hold.  Their preference: commonwealth.  The exact same offer need not be made to the West Bank Palestinians. But,  it does show that a number of options exist beyond the choice of one state or two.

Two other points deserve mention; namely, if there is no unity between Gaza and the West Bank, what, exactly, are we talking about?  And, finally, if the Palestinians remain frustrated in their ambitions won't they turn to violence?  But isn't that what Gaza has already done? Their frustration, however, is over the fact that  they hadn't yet managed to destroy Israel.  As to the West bank, they too already tried violence.  It was called Intifada 1 and Intifada 2.  And, while it did harm Israelis, it did far greater harm to the Palestinians.

Despite their frustration over the continuing existence of a State of Israel, what the Palestinians do is up to the Palestinians.  If they want violence, they can have it.  However, the alternatives available to them seem a lot more attractive.  In any event, a single Israeli-Palestinian state is simply not an options.

Capital Punishment

I just heard a radio show on NPR discussing capital punishment.  It seems that this issue is coming up once more before the voters of California.  And, while California is a rather liberal state, its voters don't seem ready to give up capital punishment.  And, I, for one, don't understand why any state or nation should.

The three most common arguments for doing away with capital punishment are, first, that it is cruel and inhuman, second, that it costs far more to administer than a sentence of life imprisonment, and, finally, that on more than one occasion we've gotten it wrong and have executed an innocent person.

Before getting into these various arguments about capital punishment, let me first clear up a matter of semantics.  In my opinion,  capital punishment might better be referred to as "capital termination," or "capital forfeiture."  "Punishment" suggests that we wish to reform behavior.  Once you terminate someone, there's not going to be any reform.   I would argue that certain behavior is so heinous that the perpetrator has forfeited his right to live.  This, of course, raises the question as to whether anyone who's committed a crime so heinous as to warrant the taking of that person's life can be judged as being sane.  That is, of course, an issue for the courts.

The taking of a perpetrators life does not have to be either cruel or inhuman.  I don't see a firing squad as being either cruel or inhuman, nor for that matter does hanging necessarily qualify as being cruel and inhuman.  But, it does seem to me that lethal injection is probably the least violent means of terminating a life.

As to cost:  Sure, capital punishment is expensive.  But, so it the alternative.  Sentence a cruel and inhuman butcher to life and, in all probability, that sentence too will be appealed as being excessive.  That's the system.

The most terrible possibility to contemplate is taking the life of an innocent person.  Here we must rely on the judge to make a determination on the facts of the case.  If the criminal has been sufficiently clever as to cover up damning elements of his crime, then, despite the preponderance of the evidence that remains, his sentence must be reduced to a life sentence.

Road to Job Growth in America

Obama has a job creation policy.  Yeah, okay, so what is it?  More government workers?

What Obama doesn't understand (and what Romney hasn't made sufficiently clear) is that jobs, or more specifically, a job policy isn't a road to be travelled -- if I may use a metaphor.  It's the destination.

And, how do you get to this destination?  Through a sound fiscal policy outlined in a responsible budget.  Create a plan to move the American economy in a sound direction and it will lead you directly to job growth; a job growth that will exceed the growth of the American work force.

Paul Ryan has laid out a budget.  It may be good, or it may not be good.  But, he's laid it out.  Where is the Democratic budget?  Until such time as the House and Senate come up with a sound budget that both sides can agree on, all this talk about a jobs policy is just so much palaver.