Defending Putin's Gambit

In my last post on the topic (http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/putins-game.html) I suggested that Putin's strategy is to control the middle of the board (Europe and the former Soviet states) from the wings, using mostly indirect action. In order to guarantee his strategic objective, Putin has positioned significant regular military assets in Belgorod, Kursk, and Rostov. The bulk of  his navy is even further south in the Black Sea. At present, Putin is using direct and indirect military force to disrupt Ukraine's political and military calculations and to destabilize the population. He is also probing NATO and the West to see what, if any, response we will have to his aggression. We can expect that Putin will continue to ratchet up the tensions a little at a time until he gets the sense that his next action will lead to an undesirable war. Keep in mind, however, not all war is undesirable to Putin. In his mind, a winnable war to secure several important strategic objectives may be worth fighting.

Ultimately, the continued threat of invasion will have a poisonous effect on the stability of the political structure in Ukraine. We've already seen fist fights in parliament and resignations from top pro-western politicians. It is very likely that, at some point, the instability will make the government unmanageable and lead to real civil war. That will be Putin's excuse to "intervene," put an end to hostilities, oppress anti-Russian sentiments, install a puppet government, and proceed to sack the country's resources. He is controlling the center from the wings, depriving the West from ultimately having any influence in Ukraine or the rest of Eastern Europe. If we let Ukraine fall, it is only a matter of time before Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia also fall - either as the result of direct intervention, or simply as a matter of collaboration out of fear of invasion. The post Cold-War Eastern European experiment with democracy will be over. Putin will be a national and international hero for putting a punctuation mark on the decay of the West, and the end of Pax Americana will be upon us.

Or we can stop him now.

The defensive strategy is reasonably simple, even if the implementation is not: (1) Flank or surround his objectives with decisive military force; cut off his ability to move irregular troops into any country; (2) reemphasize the development of our own strategic natural resources; and (3) use our comparative wealth to frustrate his plans to expand his influence in Asia and South America and aggressively go after the Russian economy.

Redeploy our Military.

Putin has left himself vulnerable across Russia's enormous western border. Ukraine is literally surrounded by EU members, like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Moreover, Poland has already started to rearm and strengthen its defenses without any help from the EU. Poland has invited the U.S. to place military assets in the country and is vociferously committed to repelling any Russian attack. It is likely that the rest of the former Soviet states would do the same given the resources and assurances from a Superpower. If Putin wants to move the chess pieces that's fine; we can move chess pieces too. If we do not move, however, we will become out flanked and Putin will win.

As much as it pains a war-weary country to hear, we need to offer to place troops, tanks, planes, anti-aircraft weaponry and other materiel in Eastern Europe. And we should not deploy just any soldiers, we need to make a point. We need to deploy our most battle-hardened units to send the message that, if there is a fight, it will be a brutal one. Battle hardened soldiers can also work closely with the militaries of those countries to train and equip their own soldiers. Putin doesn't need to know whether we will actually intervene in Ukraine. He simply needs to know that we could intervene, decisively, if we choose to. It would also have the added benefit of making it much more difficult for a unit of Russian special forces dressed as members of a motorcycle gang to enter the country to stir up trouble. Putin will be limited to using direct force, which requires much more political resolve. 

Hitler should have been stopped at Munich. Putin is no less of a threat and, because of Russia's enormous nuclear arsenal, he is actually a much greater threat. Preparing to fight makes it far less likely that one will ever have to. Committing troops early and in decisive numbers may well ensure that Russia remains marginalized and contained.

Become Energy Independent and Rebuild our Manufacturing Base.

Putin's strength is the economic hold he has over Western Europe, controlling a third of its gas and oil. While it would be fantastic if Europe would suddenly decide to jettison two decades of green energy policy, that is not likely to happen. Nor is it likely that the U.S. will be able to provide the energy that Europe needs. It is just not logistically possible. That notwithstanding, the U.S. can ensure that it is energy independent. We have access to a bounty of natural resources that, if exploited, can guarantee our ability to fuel our economy for decades, or at least until something better comes along. This means oil, gas, and nuclear power.

It is also time to have a serious discussion about the wisdom of allowing most of our manufacturing to be done overseas. Manufacturing jobs are good jobs. They pay well, tend to have good benefits, and there is reasonable job security. There are many problems in this country that have led companies to choose foreign manufacturing over domestic. Wages are higher here, it is difficult and expensive to fire bad employees; and our tax laws are out of date. The woes of American manufacturing are legion, and cannot be addressed in a paragraph. Suffice it to say that a strong, stable country is the country that is actually able to make the things it uses. We are only a Superpower so long as our economy is strong. A broad manufacturing base is absolutely indispensable to a strong economy.

Compete With Russia for Influence While We Can Still Win.

Russia reached an energy deal with China that will provide Putin's regime with billions of dollars over the next decade. China manufactures most of the country's goods. We are their largest buyer and, without us, there is no booming Chinese economy. China should be told, directly, that we do not appreciate them doing business with Russia so long as Russia is a global menace and that there will be consequences if they continue to support Putin's war. China can then be rewarded for compliance with additional trade that far exceeds the value of the deal with Russia. That is just one example. On a global level, for every offer Putin makes, the U.S. can make a better offer. Within short order, Russia's influence will be reduced or eliminated, along with their economic growth.

In the final analysis, Putin can be stopped if we have the will to stop him. What concerns me is the possibility that, like the world did with Hitler, we will delay action for so long that we will have given him the time he needs to build his military and become a force even more difficult to defeat. It is inconvenient and expensive to have to contain yet another aggressive country. I understand and, like most Americans, I wish it were not necessary. History dictates, however, that the price we will pay is much, much higher if we do not intervene now, while the weed is still just a bud.

5 Ways for Republicans to Seize Defeat from the Jaws of Victory this November.

It has been the case historically that the party of the President loses seats in the midterm elections. This year it is widely expected that Republicans will make even more significant gains than usual. Obamacare continues to flounder, children, adults, criminals and gangs continue to flood our border, and America appears impotent to stop the steady march of terrorism and aggression throughout the world. Obama and the Democrats are facing steep odds and voters have the distinct impression that the world is ablaze. All of that notwithstanding, we have seen Republicans squander big leads before with unforced errors, poor policy decisions, marginalizing their base, and misreading the rest of the electorate. Below are five things Republicans can do to blow the lead once again.

1.  Make the Crisis at the Border about Deporting Children.

There is a crisis at the border. It is almost certainly Obama's fault. It is time for Republicans to step up, on their own if necessary, and begin to take care of what has become a humanitarian disaster. The pictures coming from these camps are truly disturbing. Children are living in squalor, they are scared, and many are hungry. Many of those children have already suffered terribly to just get to this country. Some have been raped and some have endured sickness and disease. All have endured Summer heat in the desert, and it is very likely that many have died. This is an opportunity for conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives, to show the world what true mercy looks like. 

Unfortunately, many Republicans are delaying their missions of mercy. Instead we are hearing many Republicans insist that these children must be immediately deported, so that they can send a strong message back to their home countries that there is no hope for them in America.

America used to be the world's beacon of hope. For many families in the world, it still is. It makes us feel good about ourselves as Americans to believe that our country has been historically seen as a hopeful place in which hard work and a good idea can make anyone succeed. In addition, American voters act to protect children at nearly every opportunity. Every election is about children and, as parents know all too well, once you have kids, they dominate your decision making. Americans cannot live with themselves if their choices harm children. It is that simple.

So, as the election approaches, it is unwise for Republicans focus their efforts on deporting a bunch of sick, traumatized children. Regardless of your personal view on the matter, the optics will be devastating. It would be much better for Republicans to embrace their conservative, faith and family based values, and do whatever can be done to bring love comfort to these kids. It is what Jesus would do. Leave the talk of deportation out of the debate until the humanitarian crisis is under control.

2.  Talk about Female Reproduction.

Most men learn from an early age that it is impolite to talk about a woman's "private parts." Some men get into politics and forget this very important norm in our society. Women do not want male politicians to talk about their bodies, what they do with their bodies, how they reproduce and when, what they use to prevent pregnancy or how they feel when those methods fail. Of course, some issues are unavoidable and Democrats love to talk about female reproductive health. For Democrats, it is a wedge issue. Don't fall into the trap. Democrats have become masters of baiting Republican candidates into saying stupid things about abortion, contraception, sexual education - related specifically to girls - and vaccination. They raise these issues because they want the conservative candidate to open his mouth and embarrass himself. When he does, they run that soundbite throughout the election and "prove" that he is against women. The Republicans lose a seat.

The issue of abortion is a moral and medical issue, and it affects men as well as women. It does not, however, affect the sexes equally. Contraception is also a medical and moral issue. These are primarily women's issues, and simply will not be resolved by men. Women will have to first reach a consensus on what is acceptable and what is not. Rightly or wrongly, most women, even conservative women, do not think men are qualified to take the lead in resolving these issues. Input - yes; "leadership" - no. So, if abortion is your fight, make sure you have a woman out front taking the lead.

The fastest way to lose a female vote is to say something stupid or disrespectful about her body. The better approach is to just fall back on that old boyhood lesson - she does not want you to talk about her private parts - so don't.

3.  Talk about Impeachment.

It should go without saying, but asking voters to elect you so that you can drag the country through another impeachment argument is not a very good message. Bill Clinton was impeached, survived, and then proceeded to wipe the floor with Republicans during the next election because voters believed they had overreached.

Obama is not a very good President. He has consistently failed to gain a consensus on any significant issue, and he continues to simply forge his own path through regulatory action. His approval ratings are low as a result. Sun Tzu counseled that, when your opponent is busy destroying himself, stay out of the way. Impeachment should not be part of the discussion.

4.  Run to Repeal Obamacare and Offer no Alternative.

Healthcare is a major problem in this country. It was a problem before Obamacare and it has been a problem ever since. Republicans set the conditions under which Obamacare could be made possible by failing to work towards serious healthcare reforms when they had control of the government. Shortly before Obama was elected, many Americans woke up and realized that $25,000.00 a year for a family of four is far too expensive for health insurance. Obamacare does nothing to fix this, but repeal alone is not an acceptable alternative. 

Republicans who believe that Americans will simply fall at their feet because they opposed Obamacare are underestimating the electorate. Yes, most people are not as in tune with politics and government as they should be in a Republic, but voters are not stupid. About 10 years ago, companies began to move to towards high deductible plans that required employees to pay almost all of their contribution up front. This was called "consumer driven" health insurance because it encouraged employees to use less medical care by forcing them to come out of pocket. This trend was very difficult on many employees and their families who understandably began looking for true reforms. 

Republicans have the rare opportunity to use Obamacare as a political weapon against the Democrats while forging a realistic alternative. Democrats have lost all credibility on the issue, so Republicans could steal the ball and run with it. That is, if they decide to forge a real alternative. Simply being against it will not be enough to convince voters to get to the polls.

5.  Marginalize the Base.

Elections are won by voter turnout. The bases of the political parties are paramount to organizing voter turnout and expanding the electorate. Establishment Republicans have been sticking their fingers in the eyes of the base for three years now. They have largely refused to defend Tea Party Republicans or give them any real seat at the table in the Congressional leadership. Establishment political groups actively interfered with the primaries, and they hold up a small handful of poor Tea Party backed candidates as an excuse to drive the base out of the process. The Establishment got what it wanted in the last election - the loose coalition of conservatives that make up the base of the party stayed home - and Romney lost.

The Establishment is making the same mistake again. While they seek to destroy "unfit" candidates, they turn off the large segment of voters that are tired of Democrats Light ruling the party. True Republicans were horrified by the spending in the last two years of the Bush Administration. The overreach of government and the bank bailouts, followed by the coronation of John McCain as the Republican standard bearer, created a revolution within the party. Conservatives needed to find their own candidates and throw out the Big Government Republicans. The Establishment was obviously not happy with this and has now done everything it can to marginalize the conservative trouble makers.

Well, they better make nice and they better make nice quickly. The Establishment figures they cannot lose this election, even if their base stays home. That, of course, is what Mitt Romney thought. 

Putin's Game

As a follow up to my last article. If you have not read it already, you can view it here: http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/as-lusitania-sinks-world-yawns.html. 

In chess, the Reti Opening is considered a quiet play for ultimate position. The objective is to control the center of the board from the wings, using position plays to deny the opponent open space.

Vladimir Putin is a master strategist and tactician. We can ignore it, we can mock him with photoshopped pictures of him hunting polar bears, but he has already humiliated Western leaders in the geopolitical chess game. We underestimate him at our own peril. While the West was bogged down in Iraq, suffering from a recession, and generally turning our attention inward, Putin was quietly but steadily gathering strategic resources and laying the groundwork for future alliances. Russia now owns or controls more than a third of Europe's gas and oil supply. He controls almost all of Ukraine's. 

When Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against rebels who were winning the civil war, Russia stepped in to broker a deal to disarm him. In doing so, Russia almost certainly guaranteed to protect his rule. It then successfully seized the weapons, and Putin looked like a true world statesman. Assad now owes Putin. 

He then turned his attention to Iran. As negotaitions over Iran's nuclear program ground to a halt, Russia again stepped in to broker a "deal." The terms of the deal are still being negotiated, but Russia has agreed to build Iran three new nuclear power plants. Putin will be giving Iran nuclear technology that could be used to develop nuclear weaponry. Iran will never need nuclear weapons, however. Putin can guarantee Iranian hegemony in the Middle East for decades to come and prevent Israel from striking Iran's nuclear facilities. Killing a bunch of Iranians working on a nuclear power plant is fundamentally different from killing a bunch of Russian advisors working on their own power plant. Iran now owes Putin.

Then, something unexpected happened that caused Putin to accelerate his timetable. Ukraine overthrew his man in Kiev. While unexpected, Putin obviously had already developed plans for such a contingency. This should not surprise anyone. As had been famously said, without Crimea, there is no Russia. Crimea is the industrial region within which the bulk of Russian manufacturing and arms are made. Crimea is an extremely important square on the board, and Russia cannot survive if it is deprived of it. So, within days - just days - Putin sent his special forces, dressed as "protesters" and "rebels" into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to stir up pro-Russian passions. They were highly trained, well equipped and took the entirety of the region in a matter of weeks. In order to quash any Western thought of military intervention or open rebellion, he amassed a huge military presence on the border. Undoubtedly, he would have invaded if his strategic objective had ever been in question. Since victory was never in doubt, he did not have to commit his additional forces. Crimea was won, Putin's popularity at home soared, and his standing in the world as a credible alternative to the West was solidified. 

The West's response was exceptionally weak. Individual Russian oligarchs are being sanctioned, as if by calling them out and seizing their assets, these businessmen might somehow overthrow Putin. Putin has an 86% approval rating. He is a former KGB director, and controls one of the largest militaries in the world. He is not going to be overthrown by some Russian oil barons who lost money. 

Even if those oil barons were inclined to revolt, they will never need to. Fresh on the heels of sanctions, Putin traveled to China and negotiated a ten year, $43 billion dollar deal to sell China all the oil they need. Who will be providing that oil to the world's new manufacturing Superpower? Russian oligarchs. And if that is not enough, Russia now has significant influence in the Middle East. In fact, Russia now owns or controls enough oil to crush the fragile Western economies with his own "sanctions." 

And that is his endgame. Oil is the world's most important strategic asset. Without it there is no manufacturing, no transportation, no commute to the office, and no war machine. Even a modest increase in oil prices has a chilling effect on our economy. Imagine what Putin could do to Western Europe by cutting off a third of its supply. 

Ultimately, Putin has positioned his pieces to gain a strategic advantage over the West by using quiet positioning to deprive the West of the middle of the board. He nevertheless knows that, in order to truly dominate the world, he will have to destabilize the United States, both politically and economically. We may believe that this cannot happen, but it is that belief that will create the very conditions necessary to see it come to fruition. 

As the Lusitania Sinks, The World Yawns

When the British cruise liner, the Lusitania, left New York harbor on May 1, 1915, the United States government had issued a stern travel warning to all Americans thinking of traveling on the luxury boat. The Germans had declared "unrestricted submarine warfare" in the Atlantic Ocean. The North Atlantic had been declared a war zone, and travel was not advised.  128 Americans failed to heed that warning and, on May 7th, they were killed when a German submarine torpedoed the vessel. It has never been clear whether the attack was an accident or whether the Lusitania was targeted for carrying munitions. Either way, it sunk after 20 minutes and everyone died.

Two years later, the United States declared war on Germany, entering World War I in a late, but effective, campaign. Prior to the Lusitania, the American people were decidedly neutral in the Great War. After the Lusitania, war was inevitable. 

As we all know by now, Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine, using sophisticated Russian surface to air missiles, shot down a Malaysian Airlines jet carrying 298 passengers. Almost all of the passengers were European, but there was one American. All of them are now dead. The world response has, so far,  been flaccid. The Dutch, who lost 128 citizens, have announced that Russia and Putin "have one last chance" to "get this right," whatever "this" means. President Obama has of course condemned the "crash," and called for a "cease fire." Following Obama's lead, Europe has collectively yawned.

The historical parallels between where we are now and where we were during the run up to World Wars I and II is disconcerting. You can almost smell the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire in the West and the Ottoman Empire in the East reaching their final decay before fracturing into rival powers. The global naiveté is stunning. When Putin invaded and annexed parts of Georgia, he was rewarded with the Winter Olympics. When Putin invaded and annexed all of Crimea, the world did little more than blink. When Putin turned his special forces loose on the Ukraine to destabilize the eastern region, the world stood up and declared with one loud voice that, well, they do not really "approve" of such things in a 21st century. Annexing Crimea was "not in Russia's best interests," the world declared, as if world opinion defines "Russian interests." Besides, it is argued, Ukraine is not really in a "real war." Russia is not really a "global foe." Israel should "exercise restraint." And, of course, "the border is secure." 

We are living in denial; the kind of denial that leads to tragedy. An airliner flew over airspace in which similar looking aircraft had been shot down by surface to air missiles just two days earlier. Why? Because the world does not really believe that the Russo-Ukrainian conflict is a war and, even if it were, the world has forgotten what western warfare looks like. These were not a couple of Jihadis with an RPG. These were Russian soldiers using missiles specifically designed to shoot down F-18s and U.S. bombers. No one should have been flying over Eastern Ukraine, just like no one should have been traveling from New York to Liverpool on the Lusitania. 

Now every western country is demanding access to the crash site in order to "investigate" the wreckage. The West is searching for "evidence." Our ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Powers, says that our goal is to "build an airtight case against Russia" and demonstrate that it was a Russian missile under Russian command that shot down that airplane. 

I ask you, quite simply, why? Are we going to arrest Putin? Are we going to put him on trial? Are we going to "bring him to justice"? As Ms. Powers herself said, we already have all the facts we need to conclude that Russia supplied a sophisticated missile system, probably with Russian commanders, to Russian commandos in Eastern Ukraine, which was then used to shoot down a passenger jet. "Investigations" and "building a case" are just excuses to delay action, probably forever.

World War is possible, not when the world confronts aggression, but when the world ignores it. The same pan-slavic nationalism that helped balkanize eastern Europe is alive and well in Russia and the former Soviet states. The Middle East continues to burn. There is an emerging power in Asia, already fielding a formidable military. The U.S. is in decline, withdrawing from the world and reeling from a decade of anemic economic growth. It is 1915. It is 1935. 

And storm clouds are on the horizon.

How Democracy Fails

The so called "Arab Spring" was supposed to usher in an era of democracy and political self-determination for a region of the world that has known only war for millennia. The traditional westernized, middle eastern dictator is an endangered species. As the battle lines are redrawn, however, a disturbing picture is emerging. When left to determine their own political destinies, the arabs are choosing extremist muslim jihadis over their more moderate counterparts. 

Take, for example, Israel and the Palestinians. The so called "moderate" Palestinians have been marginalized by Hamas, who won the last "election." So now the democratic Palestinians have essentially voted for more violence and perpetual war against Israel.

In Egypt, Mubarak was overthrown by radical elements. The Army took over, forced an end to the violence, and then held elections. The Egyptians voted in Mohamed Morsi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Factions within the Brotherhood have historically used terrorist tactics to destabilize the Egyptian government going back to 1928. They were banned as an organization until Mubarak was overthrown. As soon as they were elected, they began taking ever more power away from the country's other constitutional bodies to the point that the Army once again has stepped in to remove Morsi from office. 

In Syria, the violent Assad family has ruled for two generations. Assad is now fighting a desperate war against ISIS for control of the country. The so called "moderate" muslims in Syria have been marginalized in what will no doubt be another example of radical Islam legitimately seizing a country through a quasi democratic process.

Democracy fails when individual rights are not guaranteed. The difference between western democracies and others is the inclusion of some form of a "Bill of Rights" in a constitution or other governing document. It is the recognition that democracy must be tempered that leads to stable government. Government power must also be limited or the tyranny of the majority will ensure instability. When a large enough minority feels its rights are being trampled, they historically take up arms against the institutions that they feel do not represent them. Government is only legitimate so long as it has the consent of the governed. When a governing body loses its credibility, it loses its legitimacy and, by extension, its right to govern. The illegitimate government then fractures, the population balkanizes and, and the various factions go to war.

Democracy cannot work in the middle east until the majority recognizes and agrees to protect the rights of the various minorities. Unfortunately, radical Islam has no room in it for respecting the rights of others. In fact, those who do not worship the same way are executed. Many in the west were giddy about the Arab Spring. Many still hold out hope that Jeffersonian democracy with take root in a region of the world in which women are still stoned for various perceived wrongs. This is just fantasy.

It is time to be realistic about our middle east policy. Iraq was our best effort to bring democracy to the middle east. We failed because, at the end of the day, arabs more strongly identify with religious sects than they do national governments or borders. The fundamental tenants of these sects require idealogical purity. Compromise is, therefore, rarely allowed. As a result, the democratic process ushers in a tyrannical majority, not a peaceful western-like government. That is how democracy fails.

Selective Outrage Fuels Instability in the Middle East

In the wake of renewed violence in Gaza, U.N. Secretary General, Ba Ki-moon praised Palestinian leaders for "exercising restraint" in the face of Israel's retaliatory strikes against Hamas. At the same time, he lectured Israel for taking action to stop Hamas. He went on to opine that "[t]his is one of the most critical tests the region has faced in years...The deteriorating situation is leading to a downward spiral which could get quickly beyond anyone's control."

In stark contrast to those statements, Ba Ki-moon warned the U.S. and the west against military strikes on ISIS in Iraq, because it might "show the Sunni extremists" that the "U.S. and Baghdad are working together."

Approximately 12 hours ago, ISIS seized 88 pounds of uranium from a research facility in Northern Iraq. What it was doing there is anyone's guess.

As the entire middle east is about to go up in flames, the world is still fiddling with the idea that all sides must exercise restraint. The problem is, when one side is the aggressor and the other is the victim, "restraint" necessarily compromises only the victim. A victim exercises restraint by surrendering to the aggressor. The aggressor exercises restraint by keeping what it took and then showing mercy to the victim.

There are two things that are fueling instability, not just in the middle east, but in eastern Europe as well: (1) Selective Outrage; and (2) moral equivalency. Selective outrage is advocacy. There should be no mistake about that. When a leader, in this case the Secretary General of the United Nations, condemns violence against Hamas and ISIS, he is choosing sides. In both cases, he is choosing the side of the aggressor. When he calls for "both sides" to "exercise restraint" after aggression has already occurred, he is sanctioning the new status quo and, by extension, the means through which the aggressor achieved its goal. In other words, if the victim agrees to exercise restraint, the aggressor's gains remain intact.

Hamas and ISIS are both large, well organized, terrorist groups. They are both bent on the destruction of Israel and the west. ISIS has the added distinction of wanting to destroy Mecca and all other Muslims who do not accept their version of Sharia law. In fact, Al Qaeda kicked ISIS out of the terrorist club for being too violent. 

Which leads me to the concept of "moral equivalency." The world is a violent place. It will probably always be a violent place. While it is good that we strive for and work towards world peace, it is not going to happen in our lifetimes, and we cannot use "world peace" as an excuse to avoid confronting aggression. It has been fashionable for some time now to deconstruct morality to such an extent that all causes are considered equal. To be considered a modern thinker, one has to view the causes of Hamas, the Palestinians and Israel as equal. The causes of ISIS and other Muslims are all equal, just like the causes of Russia and the Ukraine. Quite simply, these causes are not equivalent.

Natural law dictates that when a group is attacked, it has a right to defend itself. There is no requirement that a victim surrender and, in fact, surrender is very rare. Our concept of natural law evolved in the aftermath of two world wars and the Holocaust to include the use of force in the defense of a victim. While not always a popular use of force, when terrorists in Africa seize a group of schoolgirls, we see the use of force as justified.

Here, the Israelis are justified in using force to stop Hamas from launching missiles into its schools. Iraqi Shiites are entitled to use force to stop ISIS from oppressing and killing its people. Ukraine is justified in using force to expel Russian operatives who are destabilizing the country. The United States is justified in using drones to blow up terrorists who are plotting to kill Americans. The world is entitled to use force to kill men that kidnap school girls to keep as sex slaves in Africa.

Treating the victims, aggressors and bystanders as moral equals does nothing but invite more  violence. World peace can only be achieved when aggression is recognized for what it is, condemned and then forced to retreat. 

Why the Border Must be Closed

Regardless of where you stand on the immigration issue, we should all agree that our open southern border poses a clear and present danger to our national security. In recent weeks, a human wave of children at the border have overwhelmed our resources, occupied the attention of our border guards, and made it even easier than usual to smuggle things and people across. We are being told that this is either part of a planned strategy by drug cartels to smuggle their drugs across the border or it is a spontaneous migration to the United States from Central America. I doubt either is correct.

If the cartels have decided to employ this human wave tactic to smuggle drugs, it would imply that our drug interdiction efforts have been effective. They have not. In fact, in the past 16 years, we have seen a shocking increase in narcotics in this country, imported from Mexico, driving the price of the drugs to historic lows. To believe that the cartels are now changing tactics in the face of such success is to believe that they are fixing, at great expense, something that simply is not broken. Moreover, there are only so many human waves of children available. If they are in fact deploying this tactic, they are naturally limited by the number of naive parents willing to sacrifice their kids. The cartels would likely reserve this tactic for something huge. Of course, their efforts would further drive down the price and, if caught, would be a total loss. It just does not seem likely that this is a cartel strategy.

Nor is it likely that this is a spontaneous migration from Central America. "These children are fleeing the terrible poverty and living conditions of Central America," we are told. I have no doubt that the living conditions in Central America are terrible, but they have been that way for centuries. Nothing has changed. To believe that these parents have only now become aware that America is a better place for their kids defies common sense. Again, nothing has changed. The Right argues that the border is more porous than ever, but this is only marginally true. Enforcement of our laws has been lacking for the past 6 years, but in reality, the border itself is far more secure now than it was before 9/11. The right argues that the lack of enforcement acts as a magnet, drawing these children and their parents to us. That argument, however, is belied by the "impoverished living conditions" argument. Again, to assume that a bunch of poor, uneducated Central American parents are sitting around the slum, evaluating American border enforcement policy, looking for that perfect time to make the 1000 mile trek, also defies common sense. 

There is little doubt that this is an orchestrated attempt, by someone evil, to overwhelm our border. Whoever the strategist is knows that innocent children are our weakness and he or she is willing to use children to accomplish an insidious goal. As Americans, our collective stomachs turn when we see suffering children. The world, and in particular our enemies, know that we will do everything we can to comfort those children. That includes taking these children into our country and providing what relief we can. However, while we provide that relief, our enemies are using the diversion to import whatever they want into the United States. That includes nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, suicide bombers, or even well trained enemy soldiers. 

And this is why we must close the border now: even if this is not part of a grand terrorist strategy, it is, at the very least, an opportunity for any enemy within traveling distance of the border to get across. As we have seen before, our enemies will take advantage of the opportunity, if they have not already.

So, grant amnesty, don't grant amnesty; deport, don't deport; build a wall, don't build a wall but, whatever your political persuasion, the border must be closed. To continue to risk another attack by allowing our enemies unfettered access to our country is reckless and intolerable. It only takes one terrorist sneaking across the border to shoot up a school. Imagine what 3000 jihadis, taking advantage of this situation, could do to our holiday season. It is time to treat this mass migration as a possible prelude to an attack, place our military on the border, and plug the breach before it is too late.

The Three Things I Will Celebrate This Fourth

As we fire up our grills this 4th of July, I can't help but to think of the hard challenges we are facing as a nation. Continued unemployment, a shrinking economy, and the threat of war abroad make this 4th seem a bit bleak. Recent polls seem to indicate that we feel worse about ourselves as a nation and less certain about our place in the world as the greatest nation on Earth. Let me share with you the things that I will be celebrating this 4th. I hope you find it uplifting.

1.  The Framers

The 4th of July is principally about the men and women who bravely forged this country and provided us the framework for growth that continues to work effectively even in today's modern world. The Declaration of Independence is a remarkable document that represents the climactic amalgamation of decades of Enlightenment thinking. Jefferson declared on behalf of a nation that "natural law" transcends government decree or the power of a King to dictate law. Natural law comes from a "Creator," and the rights conferred upon us are inalienable. This is as apt a statement today as it was then and perfectly demonstrates the true vision that was needed to forge this nation. Government, such that it is, has no rights of its own. Its only purpose is to protect those natural rights provided to us by God.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of government is no longer focused on that seminal mission. As the population of our nation has grown, so has the government. But what has remained fairly uniform is the number of representatives from whom we have to choose to redress any perceived wrongs. It is hard to believe that the Framers would have anticipated a nation of 315 million people, spanning the continent, and being governed by only 535 federal legislators. Power has become increasingly reserved for the elite.

We should never lose sight of the fact that power in and of itself does not make one extraordinary. A powerful man is just that - powerful. President Obama is a powerful American. John Boehner is a powerful American. But these men are not necessarily extraordinary Americans.

The extraordinary American is the man who drags himself to a second shift at the plant so he can put food on the table, pay for $4 gas, and maybe, one day, help his kid get to college.

The extraordinary American is the single mother who jumps out of bed in the morning, feeds her kids, takes them to school, goes to work, does her job, stops by the store on the way home, fixes dinner and then puts her children to bed.

The extraordinary American is Cpl. William Carpenter, who selflessly threw himself on a Taliban grenade during a fierce battle in Afghanistan, saving his fellow Marines.

Power is fleeting. True greatness is not.

2.  Family and Friends

The foundation of any society is the social bonds we forge. Family is the cornerstone, but community is the key to keeping us together. The diversity of our communities is staggering, but we will all be celebrating our unique American culture. We will be talking about many of the same things, eating the same uniquely American foods, and probably drinking any number of uniquely American drinks. 

In my mind, we really aren't that different. We want the same things for our children, for example, and while we can disagree on how to achieve those things, in America, the good ideas eventually rise to the top. As Americans, we always seem to be in conflict over what we know is right with what we wish was right. We know we can't save every starving child in the world, but we wish we could. We know we can't ensure that everyone is successful, but we wish they could be. In the end, most of us proceed with the best of intentions towards our fellow Americans. I will celebrate that this 4th.

3.  The Free Exchange of Ideas

I learned as a young man that the free exchange of ideas will make my good ideas better and help me cull the bad ideas from my thought process. No one person has all the answers. We need to be able to debate, sometimes fiercely, in an effort to identify the best solution to any given problem.

I also learned that in order to effectively exchange ideas, you must have an environment that fosters that exchange. When people talk over one another, hate each other, engage in ad hominem attacks, or silence dissent, the environment turns cold, authoritarian and ultimately unproductive. In that environment, only the loud ideas are heard, communicated by loud people. Advocates latch onto a cause and are unwilling to consider any other suggestion.

As the Framers met in the months prior to July 4th to debate the Declaration of Independence, there were fierce exchanges. I have no doubt that there were advocates, and that not all the exchanges were constructive. Nevertheless, a document was forged that fundamentally changed the way the governed of the world would see their governors. 

If the Declaration of Independence were to be debated today, it would never have been written. We are governed by a body of elites who have no idea what it's like to be a single mom, or work an extra shift in the factory. The governed, do not appear to me anyway, to be represented by today's government.

I blame that on the fact that we are not, really, free to exchange ideas. When a school child cannot find the Tea Party, or the "republican party," or "GOP" on their school's internet because those sites have been censored - we are not free. When a vet can't watch FoxNews in the VA because they choose to block it - we are not free. When books are banned - we are not free. When a single idea or ideology is taught - we are not free.

Voltaire famously said: "I may not necessarily agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Our nation was founded, in part, on that principle. We should celebrate it just as others have fought and died to protect it.

Happy 4th of July to you and your family from the Stuart family. Thanks for reading.

A Few Thoughts on the Hobby Lobby Case

The Supreme Court's decision yesterday in the Hobby Lobby case has been met with both jubilation and condemnation. The irony is that the decision itself is really not that remarkable. The left complains that the decision effectively ends a "requirement" that employers provide contraception to their female workers. The right says this is a massive repudiation of Obamacare and a vindication for Christian Conservatives. It is neither.

In point of fact, the decision provides a very narrow exception to the individual mandate under Obamacare. If you are a smallish, family run corporation with verifiable, deeply held religious beliefs, you may withhold abortive medicine from your workers. The decision is naturally limited to its facts and is far from a total destruction of Obamacare or the individual mandate.

The left has, of course, failed to frame the issue in an accurate way. This is not about women. Hobby Lobby's abortive contraception policy applied to male workers and their families as well as women and their families. The alternative would not have been "forcing" Hobby Lobby to cover abortions. Hobby Lobby, like every other company in the country, has a right to decline to provide any coverage or benefits to employees. Employee health and welfare programs are voluntary, even under Obamacare. While it is true that Hobby Lobby would have had to pay a penalty for opting out of coverage, any employer will tell you that, in fact, the fine is far less expensive than providing even basic coverage for your workers. Hobby Lobby was never "required" to provide contraception or any other benefit to its employees and would most likely have just ended its employee health and welfare programs if it had lost the case.

So would every other religious organization. It is difficult for some people to understand, but deeply held religious beliefs are not likely to be compromised. If there is an alternative, even a more expensive one, the Hobby Lobbys of the world will take it. Obamacare provides such an alternative. 

Moreover, courts have to be cognizant of the real world impact their decisions will have on the society as a whole. Decisions that cause a mass revolt from a majority or even a large minority of Americans are rarely justified. Most court decisions are limited to just the parties involved. While their impact may be far reaching, there are so many decisions issued on a daily basis that their relative impact is reduced. On the other hand, a decision from the Supreme Court that effectively requires a large minority of Americans to compromise their deeply held religious beliefs could end up being unenforceable or, at the very least, guarantee that the legislation leading to the decision is more closely scrutinized.

Many on the left have argued that this decision is a slippery slope. "What if your religious beliefs are that women should not work," they ask for example. The conflict of fundamental rights always leads to the most difficult decisions from the Supreme Court - but this is not one of those cases. In the example cited by the left above, the right of women to work is a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The belief some organization might have that women should not work is protected by the First Amendment. When those rights conflict, the Court must make difficult value judgments, evaluating the impact on society and the relative sincerity of the beliefs. Hobby Lobby is not such a case.

There is no Constitutional right to receive abortive medicine at the expense of your employer. There is no Constitutional right to receive medicine of any kind at the expense of your employer. There is, however, a Constitutional right to refuse to provide abortive medicine if it violates your religious beliefs. One is a protected right, the other is not.

I suspect this is not the last time the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to expand or limit the effect Obamacare has on business. This conflict, however, between an actual right and a perceived right was rightly decided.