Palin's criticism of Obama undermines US security

Sarah Palin's public criticisms of the Obama administration for taking a critical stance on Israel's controversial announcement of new settlement construction undermine US national security.

Israel announced new settlement construction in East Jerusalem, a move which violates the road map for peace, before a visit by Vice President Joe Biden to Israel intended to jump start peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. This was widely seen as a snub to the US, and eliminated any possibility of the US initiative producing any results.

A major American opposition figure, like Sarah Palin, taking the side of a foreign nation, after it insults the US president and sabotages a major American foreign policy initiative, creates a perception of American political disunity and weakens American credibility as it tries to pressure Israel into making a necessary stop to its settlement building activity.

Given the level of US military involvement in the middle east, and how much the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contributes to tensions in the middle east, peace between Israel and Palestine is a vital US national security interest, as affirmed by General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command. Palin's repeated attacks on Obama for justifiably reacting harshly to Israel's derailment of the peace initiative are inexcusable for a figure who aspires to be a major player in American politics.

The best US foreign policy would be military disengagement from the middle east, as Ron Paul proposes, but barring that, it is essential that American political figures not undermine American efforts to create lasting peace in the region, for the sake of scoring points with America's powerful Israel lobby.

The attachment to a foreign nation, which motivates this kind of political behavior from Sarah Palin and her supporters, is something George Washington warned about:

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Washington's Farewell Address 1796

Obama Administration Announces Unprecedented Gesture of Generosity

The Obama administration has declared an end to tax payer bailouts of struggling corporations and in a historic move, has declared that the staff will use their own money to save GM. This is truly remarkable, and shows the generous and selfless nature of the Obama administration staff.

Don Boudreaux from Cafe Hayek has more:

Here's a letter that I sent earlier this week to Barack Obama:

30 March 2009

Mr. Barack Obama
President, Executive Branch
United States Government
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Obama:

On your website today you write that "my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital to continue operations for the next 60 days." Because you're a man of your word and you choose your words carefully, I trust that you mean here that you and the public servants in your administration will personally pony up the working capital for G.M.

That is, like, soooo cool!!

I'm psyched that an American president and his administration finally will help a struggling company by digging into their own pockets! Thank you, thank you, thank you for breaking with the capitalist/GOP/"free-market-fundamentalist" tradition of forcing me and other taxpayers to shovel money into the bank accounts of giant multinational corporations. Thanks for risking only wealth that is your own, rather than following the prescription of lazy-fairies like Milton Friedman who (I learned in my sociology classes and from reading Naomi Klein) believed that innocent taxpayers should be forced to serve Big Multinational Corporations.

I'm so inspired that you and your White House teammates will give G.M. the bucks it needs - give them from your own private funds rather than take them from from taxpayers! That's just, like, so progressive! What a change! I believe in it!

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Administration "open-minded" about GM bailout

Forget the Constitution, forget the enumerated powers of the federal government, when it comes to the economy, the Obama administration is "open-minded" about the prospect of using tax payer dollars to bailout GM and Chrysler. From Bloomberg:

Task Force Open to Auto Aid, Avoiding Bankruptcy, Rattner Says

By John Hughes

March 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration is “open minded” about giving General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC more aid and will use “all the resources” of the federal government to avoid bankruptcy for the automakers, said Steven Rattner, chief adviser to the U.S. Treasury’s autos task force.

U.S. auto suppliers may get some aid, and the task force plans to meet a March 31 deadline for assessing GM and Chrysler viability, Rattner said yesterday in an interview. “We are open minded about committing additional resources to ensuring a viable domestic car industry,” he said.

source

Gone are the days when politicians looked upon the Constitution as their rulebook, and with a sense of duty to their Constituents, strove to limit the power of the federal government in the spirit of Constitutional Republicanism.

There is now no limit to what the politicians will consider as a justifiable exercise of power by the federal government. The federal government of the United States is no longer a limited government as setup by the framers of the Constitution. It is an all-powerful central government that decides how much freedom to afford the people. It can interfere and intervene in any sector of the society. The Constitution is merely a relic of a distant past, with no bearing in political decisions.

In times like this, a review of James Madison's quote expounding his fears of an all powerful federal government seems fitting:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

-James Madison, the father of the Constitution

Stupid Socialists think Peter Schiff is one of them

The stupid socialists over at 'Crooks and Liars' are congratulating Peter Schiff on correctly predicting the market crash. John Amato has linked to a video 'Peter Schiff was Right', where Peter's correct predictions on the market crash are shown, and he then goes on to write:

As C&Lers know, I actually watched many of Schiff's appearances on the Conservative-dominated stock shows and indeed all the free-market, screw-the-middle-class blowhards routinely laughed at him as he tried to bring some reality to their petty world. Things were terrible and nothing their cheerleading could do would change any of it ... as we've seen.

What John Amato doesn't understand, when he ridicules the supposedly "free market" guys who laughed at Peter Schiff, is that Peter Schiff is the most free market guy there is. His dad went to prison to protest the income tax. Peter Schiff believes that Obama's socialist policies will further destroy America's economy:





His main criticism of the Bush administration is that it has increased the size of government, and bailed out industries, rather than adhering to the principle of laissez faire and not intervening in the economy. He constantly criticizes America's government policies for being too socialist, as can be seen in the 4:10 mark of this video:



and at the 8:38 mark of this video:



For the socialists at 'Crooks and Liars' to pretend that Peter Schiff is one of them, and make fun of people who believe in the free market -as if Peter Schiff is opposed to the free market, just shows how incredibly ignorant and idiotic they are.

Obama shows glimmer of true leadership

The situation in the halls of political power has been dire since 1913, the year the federal reserve act and the federal income tax were enacted. Since then, the size of government has steadily increased, and politicians have increasingly relied on interventionist big government rhetoric to buy votes.

Obama, as a Democrat -who have traditionally been greater advocates of big government than Republicans- has taken big government political positions that are a sad example of the kind that have done so much to harm America.

In a recent speech though, I noticed a glimmer of wisdom -a glimmer of wisdom which ignited a hope in me that maybe, just maybe, his eyes may open to the truth of what ails the economy, and he will undergo a political metamorphosis to become a defender of limited government ideals. The speech where I saw this potential was the one he made about the mortgage crisis, and the changes he thinks are needed:



He repeated many common big government positions, such as advocating another federal stimulus package, bailing out home owners who are facing mortgage problems and touting the importance of giving more federal support for state health and education programs, etc, but he also touched on the problem of the investors of semi-privatized institutions like Fanny Mae socializing the risk of their business ventures by relying on government bail-outs when things go sour.

Criticizing the big Wall Street investors is a positive step, and maybe, just maybe, it's an indication that he has the courage to stand up to a corporate-political establishment that uses big government programs as a private piggy bank, and that he will see that the only way to fight for the true interests of America and stop this kind of opportunistic exploitation of public funds by powerful interests is by cutting back on these big government programs.

His tone too gave me hope that perhaps he was coming around to seeing the truth. It was somber, as if it was donning on him that there was an inherent contradiction between his advocacy for bailing out homeowners and his criticism of bailing out investors of semi-privatized companies like Fanny Mae.

I'm probably being way too optimistic, but I welcome any move towards sobriety among the political leadership.