|
The Worst Reporter of the Week Award goes
to Politico's Dylan Byers… Byers is really upset about a certain
politician inventing stories for political gain. While many reporters
were outraged by Texas Democrat Wendy Davis' revelation that she lied
about certain facts in her official bio, Byers wasn't one of them. He
wasn't so outraged by Wendy's lies, but was all charged up by Maine
Republican Governor Paul LePage's claim that a reporter chased his
ex-wife down for a story about their divorce. Byers skipped the lie from
Democrat Wendy Davis and felt more compelled to write about the he
said/he said between a reporter and a politician. I guess it's because
Texas is one of those small states. To read more, click here… Iraq should have been a positive domino, now it could be a failure By Michael Busler Friday, January 24, 2014 In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the phrase "domino effect" when he suggested that the fall of French Indochina to the communists could create a situation in Southeast Asia where one country's turn to communism could lead to other countries following, thereby creating a complete communistic Southeast Asia. This was done at a time when Americans feared a communist takeover. The so-called "domino theory" dominated U.S. thinking about Vietnam for the next decade. In 2003, after watching a brutal dictator kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the American public overwhelmingly supported an invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That was accomplished in a relatively short time period of a few weeks. President Bush then reasoned that America would be more secure if the majority of the people in countries like Iraq, were able to freely choose their leaders on a regular basis. He further reasoned that if Democracy and a market economy could be established in Iraq, the success and prosperity of the people would lead other surrounding nations to follow, similar to a domino theory. The result would be a more stable, less violent Middle East where people concentrated on the rewards and responsibilities of freedom rather than the hostile counter-productive activities of terrorists. The idea seemed to be working well until Barack Obama became president. In 2009, Obama said that he did not believe in the Iraq war and a war weary American public listened. Obama decided to pull troops out of Iraq in August 2010, probably about a year or so before the Iraqi government was in a position to defend itself. Obama also failed to negotiate an agreement to leave about 50,000 support troops to help with the transition. Three and a half years after the Obama pull-out, the Iraqi government is in trouble. Members of the opposing religious group as well as members of terrorist groups see an opportunity to create havoc in Iraq that could possibly lead to another civil war, although the U.S. is now sending advisors to help the Iraqi government. If Obama hadn't pulled out so quickly, what might be the result today? In 2010 Iraq was starting to blossom. Democracy was taking hold and their economy was improving. The freedom that Iraqis felt after decades of a brutal dictator began to improve their quality of life significantly. The revolts from citizens in neighboring countries, which eventually became known as the Arab Spring, was at least partially the result of the success in Iraq. The citizens of those countries also wanted freedom and wanted to topple dictators in many countries like Egypt and Libya. Even the citizens in Iran began to protest against authoritative governments. It appeared that the domino effect was proving to be valid. But then things changed. Obama turned his back on Iraq which led the government to look toward Iran for assistance. Obama ignored the people protesting in Iran. He initially assisted in Libya, but then seemed to turn his back there too. He declined to help the people of Syria, although after the Syrian government used chemicals weapons he did step in to negotiate. And finally he greatly strained the relationship with our only true Mideast ally Israel. ----------Advertisement--------- The end for Bitcoin? Millionaires across America shun Bitcoin for different alternative currency. Full story here… --------------------------------- His actions mean that the domino effect President Bush envisioned may not happen. What a shame that we have lost an opportunity to spread Democracy to this region of the world. This would have significantly reduced the terrorist threat. I suspect that many of the people that join terrorist groups do so because they have few alternatives. Democracy, along with a growing market economy, would have provided real opportunities for people to lead a more satisfying life and would have reduced the anger and frustration that they feel. Having travelled to the Middle East numerous times and having dozens of close Arab colleagues that I have come to call friends, I know of their frustration and their yearning for freedom. Although many are skeptical that things will never change, they seemed to have a glimmer of hope as Iraq began to prosper. They now tell me, they are losing hope. The real long term solution to ending the war on terrorism lies in showing terrorists that they have better opportunities for a fulfilling life. These opportunities come from a society that is free, where the majority of the people freely elect their leaders on a regular basis and one where there is economic opportunity. Had Iraq flourished, the domino effect may have led to these opportunities. We missed a real chance when we left Iraq too early. Michael Busler, Ph.D. is a public policy analyst and a Professor at Richard Stockton College. The Project to Restore America Every email is important to us. We can't always respond individually, but we read and consider everything. Please email your question, comment or complaint to wendy@theprojecttorestoreamerica.com.  Part III. Great article by Ebeling. Yes! – AnonymousBidwell comment: Some signs indicate the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the old 'Great Society' legislation and line of thinking… In fact, according to Gallup's "Mood of the Nation" poll conducted in early January, 2014, "Sixty-five percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation's system of government and how well it works." According to the analysis, "One reason Americans are dissatisfied with how the government system is working is that they believe it is too big and powerful. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) are unhappy with the size and power of the federal government." That's great news… Americans are waking up. Even Google Inc., whose employees have been big financial supporters of President Obama with some going to work for the administration, might be waking up. According to The Wall Street Journal's Google Broadens Outreach to GOP, Google doesn't want more government regulations so the company is reaching out, supporting Republican congressmen, and trying to make some new friends. At this point, it doesn't look like Google has really made a shift in ideology… In this area, I believe Google has some room to grow. Imagine the influence a company like Google could have if it started advocating for the very principles (a free market economy) that allowed it to be great. . . . Jeffrey H. Anderson, writing for The Weekly Standard, sums up what is going on as follows: "President
Obama hasn't talked about this particular feature of his signature
legislation. Indeed, it's bad enough that ObamaCare is projected by the
Congressional Budget Office [CBO] to funnel $1,071,000,000,000.00
(that's $1.071 trillion)… from American taxpayers, through Washington,
to health insurance companies."You read that right. The figure of more than a trillion dollars comes from the CBO. Anderson goes on to say: "It's even worse that ObamaCare is trying to coerce Americans into buying those same insurers' product… It's almost unbelievable that it will also subsidize those same insurers' losses. But that's exactly what it will do – unless Republicans take action . . ." – Center for Individual Freedom update Bidwell comment: Here is Jeffrey H. Anderson's Weekly Standard article. It is extremely important that all Americans understand this issue. I strongly encourage you to read Anderson's article if you aren't up to speed on the "Risk Corridor Program that limits overall losses for insurers." According to The Wall Street Journal's "GOP Eyes Leverage From Debt Ceiling," House Republicans are considering demanding small changes to Obamacare in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. One change currently being considered is the Risk Corridor Program," which is this bailout for insurers. This is clearly a non-partisan issue, and we should expect every congressman and senator, regardless of party affiliation, to support this. Remember the central tenant of the Occupy Wall Street group was no more government bailouts for big corporations. Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, and independents should all be in agreement on no more bailouts… Everyone should want this. I'll keep you informed on how it goes… |
No comments:
Post a Comment