The Patriot Post Brief 4-12-2010

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Brief 4-12-2010
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

The Foundation

"Whatever enables us to go to war, secures our peace." --Thomas Jefferson

For the Record
America's skies under Obama's nuclear policy?

"Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place. During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye Moscow. Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one's ever been there. A nuclear posture is just that -- a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice. Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That's why nuclear doctrine is important. The Obama administration has just issued a new one that 'includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture,' said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons. Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory. Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective. Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is 'in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),' explained Gates, then 'the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.' ... This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections. Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation?" --columnist Charles Krauthammer

Opinion in Brief

"The prospect of universal destruction will deter only if it is convincing. If a potential aggressor is assured he will be spared nuclear retaliation should he employ 'only' biological or chemical weapons, then the incentive to use them will increase. The old concept of a balance of power, as Churchill pointed out in his Iron Curtain speech just after the dawn of the atomic age, is no longer sound. For the strategic objective must be to amass such an aggregation of power on the side of peace and stability, including nuclear power, that it will deter the forces of aggression. Peace through strength, in short. For that kind of deterrence to be convincing, strategic ambiguity must be preserved, not lessened. There is nothing wrong with talking about America's nuclear forces -- so long as nothing very specific is said about how they would or would not be employed. Let aggressors have to guess. There's a reason for that old Irish toast, 'Confusion to our enemies!'" --Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editor Paul Greenberg

Political Futures

"At a private event the other evening, it has been reported that one of the Obama Administration's lead economic counselors, Paul Volcker, indicated the support for a Value-Added Tax (VAT) may be more achievable than in the past. ... In order to fund the record spending of the federal government, hard-working families and small businesses are going to be required to foot more of the bill ... it is that simple. After passage of a nearly $1 trillion health care bill, the Obama administration cannot longer deny this. The only question in my mind has been how much will our taxes be raised -- and when. A VAT is a tax that is added to a good at each stage of the production process. ... Not surprisingly, VAT taxes are not borne wholly by the producers themselves. Rather those incremental taxes are passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Even [more] troubling, this tax comes with a complete lack of transparency. Unlike a sales tax, which the consumer sees as a line item on their sales receipt beyond the retail price, a VAT is simply a hidden tax. It is another way for the federal government to take our money and deliberately leave taxpayers in the dark about their share of footing the bloated federal budget. Now keep in mind, the addition of a VAT would be on top of our already overly burdensome federal tax system -- meaning that you would continue to pay your federal income, payroll, capital gains, and estate taxes. ... This was the first salvo in what many of us have feared -- Democrats gearing up to increase our tax burden by creating a new form of federal taxation." --columnist Michael Reagan

Liberty

"The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upsmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation. I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways. ... Americans who wish to live free have several options. We can submit to those who have constitutional contempt and want to run our lives. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights. We can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. ... The bottom-line question for all of us is: Should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another? My preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation." --economist Walter E. Williams