Now, Barack Obama has said that he is inclined to meet with the internationally controversial Iranian President at the right time after due preparation and advance work by US diplomats. Contrary to mainstream media views, the President of Iran is virtually powerless. Any candidate for the presidency of Iran must first be vetted by a hard-line group of twelve clerics who are controlled by the un-elected Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. During the recent election for President of Iran the members of the Guardian Council disqualified over ninety-eight percent of the candidates, including all female candidates and virtually every single reformist. Hence, although Iran has elections, these elections are simply fodder for the mainstream media, providing straw figures to distract foreign politicians like Barack Obama.

Many of Barack Obama’s national security policies are sideways backward-looking and retreads from the Carter Administration. Obama supports direct negotiations with the Iranian theocracy, opposes support for pro-Democracy Iranian groups, and advocates open lines of relation with the most corrupt members of the regime. All this works to legitimize the dictatorship.
The signature moves of Obama are to be too noble for mere politics, but the team of foreign policy security advisers that his administration looks likely to field is the constellation of advisors and policy staff that will render him just another “high-toned liberal” doomed to failure. The Obama team is composed of a combination of the young and inexperienced, a retreads of the usual suspects, characteristic of the Carter and Clinton Administrations, lofted up from poorly grounded gray matter of liberal universities and think tanks. The team members may be united by with good intentions; but without appropriate grounding, they are likely on the road to disappointment and failure.

Among the few prominent figures are Zbigniew Brzezinski who was President Carter’s National Security Advisor and a veteran of multiple failures in Iran; Lt. General Merrill McPeak, designer of untimely Air Force retrenchment and stillborn change during the Clinton Administration; Gregory Craig, aide to Ted Kennedy and an exuberantly creative Clinton partisan who defended his President at the impeachment; and Susan Rice, the black hole of talk and inaction.

President Bush has consistently reached out to Iranian people, a nation that Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute dubbed the “most pro-American in the entire region, if not the world”, and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called “the ultimate red state.”, while the un-elected anti-American government wields a miniscule 15-20% support.

Although we are unsure whether Obama merits to be judged by the company he keeps, his advisors appear to adhere only to the obvious immature foreign policy proffered by Jimmy Carter. In Iran, the Carter Administration helped bring down one of the United States greatest allies and infiltrated modern terrorism. The lack of intellectual and moral clarity about global threats and how America and the freedom seeking people of the people of Iran and other mid-east nations should respond will make them incapable of acting on the crucial deeper game.

Slater Bakhtavar is president and founder of Republican Youth of America, a frequent commentator and respected analyst on foreign policy issues, an attorney with a post-doctoral degree in International law and pursuing his M.B.A.

Leaders of the group of eight countries; the United States, Japan, Britain, Germany, France, Canada, Italy and Russia; met recently in Tokyo, Japan, to discuss world problems but any expectation that some degree of success at solving problems might result would be a mistake.

Of course as one might expect global warming was on the agenda and from all reports that was the only issue worthy of discussion since apparently no other topic was the subject of comment in the final press release. Simpletons, like me, might have thought oil, Mid East conflicts, Iraq, Iran, a depreciating dollar and escalating Euro, economies of each country, and the like, would have also appeared to be of sufficient importance to be considered by representatives of the eight largest economic powerhouses of the world. But perhaps to get into such tedious subjects may have been too tiresome and would interfere with a pleasant interlude in one of the most expensive cities of the world. Of course cost is no factor or the group might have considered meeting in for example; Accra, Ghana or Mexico City (or even Palm Desert, California), or some other place less expensive than Tokyo.

Since global warming was the subject de jour judging from actual reports in brief articles about the conference hidden on inner pages of newspapers, what were the results of the meeting of global minds on the subject? Well, how about this as a statement from the group:

“We support a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions that assures growth, prosperity and other aspects of sustainable development.”

Most horrifyingly, another statement from the group said they pledged to support a U.N.-led effort to conclude a new global warming pact by the end of next year – which, conveniently, is after George Bush leaves office and either of the two global warming gullible takes office. We who are enjoying incandescent light bulbs, moderately priced electricity and gas, the prospect (at least) of becoming energy independent, can expect that future history books and the soon-to-be elders among us will look fondly back to the good old days when people actually had some control over their lives before control was forfeited to the governments of the world, including the United States.

Although global warming was the primary focus; just so the conference was not a total waste of time energy was also mentioned, but was any energy-related problem solved? Well, judge for yourself:

A report of the group’s proceedings in The Yomiuri Shimbun (a Japanese English-language newspaper) had this to say about the meeting; I’m sure it will give you comfort that our leaders really know how to deal with the pressing problems of the world:

“Leaders of the Group of Eight major countries Tuesday expressed concern that the world economy is facing uncertainty and increasing global inflationary pressure.

They also agreed the world economy is slowing down compared to last year, according to sources.

Morning discussions on the second day of the summit meeting here focused on joint measures to address surging oil and food prices.

Based on the recognition that soaring oil and food prices pose serious threats to the world economy, the leaders confirmed their intention to continuously take appropriate action to address the problem.

To defuse the crisis of surging oil prices, the leaders agreed to ask both oil producers and consumers to take necessary steps, such as boosting oil production capacity, expanding investment in refineries and other oil-related facilities, and promoting energy-saving efforts, the sources said.”

As you can see the Group of Eight conference was properly placed in the news. The out come was as useful as other meetings, the best about which could be said: “We had a useful exchange of views.” Overlooked in the Japanese newspaper article was what conferees thought about apple pie, mother, home and country; maybe they can take these up at the next conference instead of talking about how to mess up the world and the people in it.

Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His articles may be read at www.vincentgioia.com and he may be contacted at gioia@gte.net.

Now, some might call Obama a hypocrite. Isn’t he guilty of the very invidious discrimination he claims plagues America? It’s certainly easy to take this tack, and many on my side will have a field day doing so. Yet, such an analysis only qualifies us for a job such as, well, working in a leftist senator’s office. Let’s look a little deeper.

I once read that female fashion models earn three times as much as their male peers. Then, it’s well-known that heavyweight boxers make more than lightweights. Would you support government intervention to ensure pay equity among fashion models and boxers? I mean, as for the latter, lightweights have to train as hard and also endure ruinous blows.

Of course, you might point out that to succeed in the lightweight division, you only have to beat lightweights, but to keep your teeth in the heavyweight division, you have to beat heavyweights, a more difficult task. So it’s fair, isn’t it?

I agree, but often fairness is reckoned very differently when the lower-paid group has been assigned victim status. For instance, in tennis, there long was talk about the “grave injustice” of offering female players less prize money at Grand Slam events. Yet it’s the same as in boxing. Whether or not the women train as hard, the fact remains that to succeed in women’s tennis, they only have to vanquish women, not the far stiffer competition on the men’s tour. Thus, in either sport, it’s ridiculous to rally for equal pay based on an equality argument because the systems are inherently unequal, in that both lightweight boxers and female tennis players are offered an arena in which to compete that excludes the best competition. Yet the competitors do have recourse. If lightweights want the glory and purses of the heavyweights, they can move up into that division. Likewise, if the women want the men’s money, they should play on the men’s tour.

Yet this doesn’t explain the discrimination against male fashion models in an industry where all and sundry compete in the same arena. They all do “equal work,” don’t they? Perhaps, and this is the problem with advocating social engineering in the name of fairness.

What we earn has nothing to do with idealistic notions of fairness but is determined by the value the market – our fellow citizens, in other words – assigns to our labors. Is it fair that rap thugs and sports stars earn more than doctors and teachers? Is it fair that mainstream media propagandists who peddle the wage-gap myth earn more than an alternative-media journalist who tries to debunk it (well, that’s not fair!)? Not just female fashion models but also heavyweight boxers and male tennis players earn more money for one reason, and one reason only. It has nothing to do with performing more arduous work but because the market values them more highly.

At the end of the day, the only question is who will determine wages and on what basis? Should it be 300 million citizens or a small number of politicians and bureaucrats, a market democracy or market autocracy? In other words, all of us, every day – through what we buy, watch and show interest in – essentially “vote” on what will get produced, how much people get paid, etc. Are we fair? Again, fairness is a hard thing to reckon. I can’t boast about our embrace of shock jocks and reality television, but I will use a variation on a famous Winston Churchill line: Market democracy is the worst system in the world . . . except for all the rest. I’ll take the “unfairness” of the market over that of pseudo-elite politicians any day. Now let’s contrast these two models.

Actually, the market does in fact discriminate. It compensates those who work longer hours, accept greater responsibility and risk, and prevail over stiffer competition more than those who don’t, for instance. (This is why I used the modifier “invidious,” meaning “likely to create ill will,” earlier in this piece – not all discrimination is created equal.) And, as I illustrated, certain groups benefit from this moral discrimination, such as heavyweight boxers and men. Then there are groups privileged simply because of what they are, such as female fashion models (however, “what they are” makes their employers more money). Now, I ask again, should the government intervene on behalf of lightweight boxers and/or male fashion models?

Regardless of your answer, a Big Brother market autocracy won’t. What it will do is train its sights on only politically-incorrect targets, such as men. Thus, in the name of eliminating discrimination, statists are creating second-class groups which are told that they alone may not enjoy compensation commensurate with the market’s assessment of their worth, simply because it’s fashionable to discriminate against them. You see, when jockeying for votes by playing group politics, some groups must be cast as villains. And guess what, men, you’re one of them.

Now that’s what I call invidious.

I say this even if they do sometimes give us things such as rap thugs, reality television, and Barack Obama.

Contact Selwyn Duke

One writer, apparently blinded by ideology, suggested falsely, that the electoral winner of the 2004 presidential election didn’t win the popular vote. This false assumption was undoubtedly the result of the same presidential candidate who won in 2000, being reelected in 2004.

First of all, the country was never designed to be a true democracy, as our Founders frowned on that form of government, at least some of them thinking it to be tantamount to “mob rule.”

Those who insist upon the “popular vote” are often people still upset about the 2000 presidential election outcome, who have never considered the disadvantages of such a system, or how it ultimately undermines the rule of law.

The reason the Founders implemented the electoral system is to ensure wider demographic consensus, not mere a majority, but majorities across differing constituencies, thus avoiding “factionalism.” People who live in suburbia, rural areas, and small town U.S.A., obviously have different values and societal objectives than those of the teaming masses crowded in big cities. The U.S. is a representative republic, not a democracy, regardless of the frequency that certain politicians misspeak.

Without the electoral system, a politician could more easily win an election just by catering to the wants and demands of those in large metropolitan areas. That is done merely by promising to the disgruntled masses, a greater portion of the public treasury. Such a “vote for benefits” quid pro quo, could insure that those politicians playing the game have a virtually perpetual incumbency. That sort of politics are the perfect recipe for baking career politicians into the political cake.

The small metropolitan area where I live has seen vigorous campaign efforts from both parties over the past two presidential cycles. My state has voted blue by between 10,000 and 20,000 votes in the past two elections. My political district is a conservative stronghold, which has been drifting left of late, thus is deemed a targeted constituency by both major parties. Without the electoral college, that keen interest would quickly disappear.

The current electoral system landscape, actually has been greatly “democratized” since its original inception. One such change that few people are aware of, occurred early in the 20th century, when the Constitution was amended, so that popular vote, rather than the state legislature would determine the two senators from each state.

Personally, I favor a hybrid of the original electoral system in place before the 1840’s to determine presidential elections. Each candidate should get electoral votes for the congressional district he or she wins, rather than the “winner take all” state electoral system we have now. Two additional delegates at large, representing the Senators would be awarded for the winner of the popular vote within each state.

Such a system gives greater weight to the votes of each congressional district, while the two at large votes would give more political clout to less populated states.

Those who complain that the electoral college skews the majority opinion, should consider that in the state of Wisconsin, for example, the more liberal candidate consistently gets sent to Washington D.C. This happens despite the fact that the same candidate generally wins only two state congressional districts, out of the eight or nine represented in the last two presidential cycles.

As is made clear – beyond any reasonable argument – the Executive Branch is charged with commanding the Armed Forces and the Legislative Branch is charged with the funding of the Armed Forces.

Check. Balance.

Should the will of the people be that an armed conflict is unjust, the representatives of the people have the wherewithal to defund the Armed Forces, thus denying them not only compensation but the ability to procure weapons, tactical and sustainable goods and ammunition. This ability to defund presents both an intentional and moral pressure on the Commander-in-Chief. No able leader would deprive his soldiers of arms, ammunition or the security in knowing provisions are in place for their families.

Of course, the above passages from the US Constitution were enacted during a time of honor; during a time when it was unheard of and, in fact, disgraceful for one to abdicate either their personal or civic responsibility. These articles and sections were created and enacted in a time when good government was placed before the narcissism of the politically opportune.

We do not live in a time when politicians can be expected to give a damn about honor. We live in an age when taking responsibility for ones actions is seldom a reality and usually the exception to the rule. We live in an age of “group think” and “truth by consensus.” If those responsible for enacting and executing the laws of our land deem a situation too politically damaging you can bet the farm they will establish a commission or a blue ribbon panel to “group think” the issue. By creating the “group think consensus” politicians avoid having to take a stand that may be unpopular, abdicating their responsibility to their constituency to a faceless, nameless “commission.”

(As an aside, the ideas of “group think” and “truth by consensus,” although Orwellian in their tone, are in fact Marxist/Leninist leaning notions based in moral relativism.)

While many commissions and blue ribbon panels are seated by our elected officials, others are formed by private institutions, institutions of higher learning and philanthropic institutions. Where the recent story of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is concerned, we are faced with a commission from all three.

▪ Provides that the president shall consult with Congress before deploying US troops into “significant armed conflict” – i.e., combat operations lasting, or expected to last, more than a week.

▪ Defines the types of hostilities that would or would not be considered “significant armed conflicts.”

▪ Creates a new Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, which includes leaders of both Houses as well as the chair and ranking members of key committees.

▪ Establishes a permanent bipartisan staff with access to the national security and intelligence information necessary to conduct its work.

▪ Calls on Congress, to vote up or down on significant armed conflicts within 30 days.

When one understands the authorities granted to the Executive and Legislative Branches of the United States Government, it is painfully obvious that not only does the War Powers Consultation Act continue the unconstitutional usurpation of the Commander-in-Chief’s authority to command our Armed Forces; it proposes a further encroachment on the separation of powers.

“Provides that the president shall consult with Congress before deploying US troops into “significant armed conflict,” provides a literal seat at the table where Executive Branch military decision making is concerned.

“Defines the types of hostilities that would or would not be considered ‘significant armed conflicts,’” effectively limits the Commander-in-Chief in the ability to act should our nation find itself, “already under attack or serious threat,” both definitions being subjected to Legislative Branch interpretation.

“Creates a new Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, which includes leaders of both Houses as well as the chair and ranking members of key committees,” attempts to transition the onus of declarative responsibility regarding military action from the singular voice of the Commander-in-Chief to “group think consensus” of a committee plus one.

And, “establishes a permanent bipartisan staff with access to the national security and intelligence information necessary to conduct its work,” not only encroaches on the privilege granted to the Commander-in-Chief and his staff in times of conflict, it opens any and all military operations up to politicalization; even more so than it is already.

In fact, the only provision in this absurdly unconstitutional proposal, that exists within the boundaries of the Constitution is the right for “Congress to vote up or down on significant armed conflicts within 30 days.”

That James Baker, Warren Christopher and the rest of the National War Powers Commission believe they know better how to vest constitutional powers than the Framers of our Constitution is a testimony to the definition of arrogance. That they would consider usurping the authority of the United States Constitution by allowing the partisan Congress to encroach upon the awesome and singular responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief places them squarely at the service of the American Fifth Column.

The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief. He alone commands the US Armed Forces. The Congress funds the Armed Forces. Should Congress ever feel that the US Armed Forces are engaged in a dishonorable action they have the wherewithal to defund it mission and thus bring it to an end. All they have to do is actually have the courage to do so. Today, there is no courage on Capitol Hill…only consensus.

Check. Balance.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for BasicsProject.org a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network and on The Captain’s America Radio Show catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and are syndicated nationally. He is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at newmediajournal@comcast.net.