Regarding Osama Bin Laden's Killing by US Navy Seal Team

Like other Americans, I woke up to the wonderful news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in an assault on his compound in Abbottabad by US Navy Seals late last night.

There as so many things one can express on the heels of this important event.

First, of course, as many others have said, it's notable to enemies of the US that we endured 10 years of sacrifice by our military and intelligence forces to find and kill this terrorist. Like the Soviet Union of old, perhaps, now, more countries will appropriately respect and fear attacking US non-combatants and or military personnel without a declaration of war.

Second, given his long-running opposition to the entire process of seeking retribution for the 9/11 attacks, I hope Wonderboy receives no credit for this. It was quite obviously the work of those lower-level, long-term personnel who are not part of his administration.

Never the less, hearing of the details of the planned strike, it's clear that the First Rookie saw this as just another early campaign event. No Predator strikes on this one. No, he wanted to claim a clear, identified kill to help his re-election campaign.

But if you listened to his 9 minute speech, he said some curious things, and omitted others. There was no sense of joy or triumph in his words. And he wrongly claimed that Bin Laden wasn't a Muslim, and that this had nothing to to with Muslim terrorism. Ever the Islamic apologist, his words actually made one wonder if Wonderboy isn't a closet Muslim who attends Christian services because he knew Illinois would never elect a Muslim Senator, and the US would never knowingly elect a Muslim president. I'm not saying it's a major concern of mine, but with all the lies this guy has told for years, and how cynically he's treated the American public, this would not surprise me if it were found to be true years after his exit from the Oval Office.

Remember, he's the guy who claimed that America is a Muslim nation. And wanted/wants to close Guantanamo Bay, the facility where, we have now learned, KSM gave up information under interrogation which led to yesterday's happy event.

Then there's Wonderboy's obvious contempt for our armed forces and his plans to energetically cut funding for them.

Instead, Wonderboy tried to simply characterize Bin Laden as a generic global terrorist. This is nonsense. Bin Laden always identified his brand of terrorism as religious and anti-American.

I think full credit goes to George W. Bush for having set in motion and presided over most of the era during which the US has been retaliating for the 9/11 attacks on our civilian population.

Additionally, those of us old enough to recall, as am I, the sad events at Desert One under our national embarrassment of a president, Jimmy Carter, can't help but thank Ronald Reagan's rebuilding of our military which led to a more capably-equipped and -led force like the Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden.

Because Bin Laden was an Islamic terrorist, not a uniformed military commander, I am somewhat at a loss as to why we treated him to an apparently Islamically-correct funeral.

Remember the video taped beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Perle? And other US citizens captured abroad?

Personally, I'm put in mind of the way the Russians reacted to the early 1970s kidnapping of one of their embassy personnel in either Pakistan or Afghanistan. I recall, around that time, the US lost either an ambassador or other senior embassy official, and we basically accepted it. The Soviets, instead, kidnapped and, I believe, let it be known that they tortured or would kill the member of the organization that kidnapped their guy, and several more, as well.

Their man was nearly-immediately released unharmed.

It would seem to me that we should have used Bin Laden's death and body to send a signal to other Islamic terrorists that we would and will do whatever is necessary to their corpses to defile them religiously in order to prevent their entry into a happy Islamic afterlife. Not that the US would do so to a uniformed member of the military forces of an Islamic enemy. But this guy was not an acknowledged member of any other nation.

I don't know precisely what that treatment would be, but it seems that there were a myriad of ways his corpse could have been treated, for a video record, to assure onlooking Islamist terrorists that we will give no quarter to them. I'm thinking something involving decapitation and disemboweling, for starters. Things that would horrify Islamic terrorists.

The British used to put the heads of traitors on pikes at Traitors Gate. It's an inspriring example for how to treat Bin Laden's body, is it not?

I will just bet you that the Seals who took him down enjoyed much such banter regarding how they would, if allowed, treat his corpse as a trophy. Things we'll never hear in public. In fact, we'll probably never learn the identity of the Seal who put Bin Laden to death until he, too, has died, in order to protect him and his family from reprisals.

All of that notwithstanding, the choice of a burial at sea, where no martyr-like ceremonies may be held by Bin Laden's followers is understandable.

Among the silly after events this morning were various Q&A's of people like Jack Welch and Warren Buffett regarding the effect of Bin Laden's death on the global or US economy, equity markets, etc.

That's just nonsense.

So is one person's comparison of Bin Laden's killing to Hitler's death. Hitler lead a legitimate country in a world war. He was a profoundly evil man, but the elected head of the German nation.

Bin Laden was a nation-less terrorist. His terror organization remains in existence, probably now planning reprisals to re-establish their relevance and capacity for danger.

Also inane was one anchor's question regarding the relationship between the recent Arab Spring and Bin Laden's killing. How in the hell could someone be so stupid as to see any relationship whatsoever between these? One is a multi-nation process of dictatorial overthrow with a melange of parties responsible in each country. The other is a surgical military operation to take out the world's leading (Islamic) terrorist.

Perhaps the most important aftermath is how our government handles issues with the Pakistan government.

After all, you'd have to be an idiot to not believe that they knew where Bin Laden was. The news stories this morning contain so many details that it is simply not credible that the world's leading terrorist was not living with the tacit approval and acquiescense of the Pakistani government.

For example, his million-dollar compound was within a few hundred yards of a major Pakistani military installation and retirement compound for officers. Abbottabad is on the outskirts of Islamabad, Pakistan's capital. It's as if a major US terrorist was living in a multi-million dollar luxury compound in Alexandria, Virginia.

Furthermore, the compound had no telephone nor internet links, and, rather than put their garbage out like everybody else, burned it withing the compound.

One wonders how George Bush would be reacting, knowing that the Pakistanis basically were 'against' us on this one.

The one thing Jack Welch said that was worthwhile was to remind viewers that George H. Bush was defeated for re-election only a year after his successful military campaign to retake Kuwait. So it's quite reasonable that Wonderboy will receive no long term credit for this whatsoever.

Nikki Haley's WSJ Editorial

I thoroughly enjoyed South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley's recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal concerning the NLRB's vote to prohibit Boeing from operating its second 787 Dreamliner production line near Charleston.

Since South Carolina is a right-to-work state, Haley's perspective was refreshing. She was blunt in assaulting unions for curbing her state's citizens' rights and interfering in the direct relationship between employer and employee. Further, she blasted Wonderboy for allowing the NLRB's vote, arguing correctly that it sends an intimidating signal to every private enterprise in America.

With America's tepid economic recovery from the failed Keynesian policies of this administration, Haley's charges ring true and hopeful herald a robust, effective GOP attack which will remove the current occupants from the White House come early 2013.

Trump, The Birth Certificate, & Frank Luntz

Frank Luntz issued an open-ended challenge on a Fox News program this past week for a $10,000 bet that Donald Trump will not formally run for president.

He's the only source of objectively critical coverage of Trump, other than Bloomberg, and they both have echoed my own misgivings about Trump as a credible business person. I've written several posts on that topic, notably this one.

However, Luntz, by far, issued the most unqualified statement that he believes Trump is simply mining free publicity, but has no intention of seriously running.

None of his foreign policy ideas appeal to anyone who understands how markets and global political dynamics work. Yes, many like the blunt, tough-talking lines. But if you pay careful attention, you'll note that none of Trump's promises can actually be fulfilled by him as president.

As one pundit, I believe Charles Krauthammer, while Trump sounds a lot like Pat Buchanan, at least Buchanan actually had some experience in government.

Trump hasn't really succeeded in his own area of activity without several bankruptcies and a gilded start. So I think it's safe to dismiss his antics as so much grandstanding.

The White House Smirks At Easter

I saw the video clip of the White House press secretary smirk derisively in response to questions regarding the lack of any formal Easter statement this year.

Critics have noted that Wonderboy observes 'made up' holidays like Kwanza, but failed to have the White House issue any sort of formal observance of this very important Christian holiday.

Defenders of the First Rookie immediately categorize these criticisms as racism and more attempts to paint him as a Muslim.

To me, as one pundit also contended, the President of the US is both the Chief Executive and the chief ceremonial officer. Thus, for a largely Judeo-Christian nation, it's been customary for years that there have been observances of certain holidays important to the largest segments of the population.

I wouldn't have minded so much if the press secretary had simply said they felt Wonderboy's attendance at a (yet another problematic, but that's a story for another post) Christian church on Easter Sunday was sufficient.

But the smirking and derogatory attitude suggesting that the issue was inane and beneath concern belied a smug satisfaction that such a formal observance of this Christian holiday had been noticed.

Voting & The Tipping Point: Transfer Payments Outstrip Wages

Back in November of 2008 I wrote this post concerning the notion of voter eligibility. It's actually one of my most popular ones, judging by Sitemeter's referral data. It's a topic that often raises images of Jim Crow laws, police with fire hoses, and unfair, overly-complicated literacy tests in the Deep South before 1970.

However, a report out this week that transfer payment income has now outstripped wage income in the US caused me to think that it's time to write another post on the topic of voter eligibility. Earlier, I suggested that if you don't pay taxes at local, state or federal level, you shouldn't be eligible to vote in those elections.


Perhaps it's simpler....if you make more from transfer payments than wages plus capital gains, you shouldn't be eligible to vote for anything.


Simply put, if you take more than you make, you don't deserve to vote. You can talk all you want, but since you are living off of others, you aren't allowed to tell them how to govern. And, most importantly, you aren't allowed to tip the scales further by voting for your own interest in living off of the kindness of your fellow citizens.

I honestly think it's time we consider such eligibility criteria. It's clearly not meant to subjectively infringe on any age, race or other particular group, except those who derive the bulk of their income from others, by way of transfer payments.

The nation's original voting criteria involved land ownership. At the time of the Revolution, landowners were seen as having identifiable "skin in the game," while merely working for a living wasn't seen as having a stake in a community. Land was immobile.

Now, it's not mobility that is the issue. It's living off of government largess. So an eligibility test that is more purely directed at earnings sources would make much more sense. Only those who produce more value than they receive from the government should be eligible to vote. Based on the prior year's tax returns, the federal government would be able to provide each state and local jurisdiction with a list of that entities' legitimate voters.

This could both reduce fraud, as well as eliminate the effect of those who only consume tax dollars. Moreover, those wishing to vote would have an added incentive to earn sufficient income on their own to outweigh any government transfer payments.

Picking On Big Oil

When Wonderboy held his town hall meeting in reaction to Paul Ryan's budget, he excoriated "Big Oil." Such an easy target.

Going down a well-trodden road, the First Rookie attacked large US oil firms for making money and receiving various tax preferences.

Even this Tuesday morning, as I write this, Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania's former Democratic governor, is attacking the same firms for making so much money recently by way of higher oil prices.

Both Democrats ignore a fundamental reality voiced by an oil industry commercial I saw (again) last night. It features an attractive blonde woman informing viewers that "Big Oil" is, in fact, largely owned by pension funds, endowments and US individuals at large.

And that is my point.

What is the objective of our president attacking companies which are widely-held by the public, either via pension funds or individual accounts, for being successful?

Can't these Democrats see that they are essentially attacking the principle of the "American dream" of having access to a better economic life?

To hear Rendell and Wonderboy tell it, Chevron and ExxonMobil are still owned by the Rockefellers. That hasn't been true since the Standard Trust was broken up early in the last century.

These politicians needs better handlers crafting their messages so they at least bear some resemblance to modern day reality.

Big Oil is owned by America. More profits for Exxon means capital gains, dividends, or both for the average US individual, either through private accounts or their pension funds.

Big Oil enjoys tax preferences in order to incent them to spend money to buy leases and drilling exploratory wells in the US. If those tax preferences are eliminated, guess what? Overseas sources of oil become relatively more attractive.

But that, of course, is exactly what the administration claims it doesn't want.

So which is it?

Maybe the answer is to flatten taxes so that there are no preferences anywhere? So that tax policy is no longer used as either a political club or by officeholders to dispense favors for campaign contributions?

But, as it stands, those same existing tax preferences put money into the pockets of....the average American.

And that's the truth.

Alan Blinder's Smear of Paul Ryan & His 2012 Budget Proposal

Last week, the Wall Street Journal published a political editorial by Princeton's Alan Blinder entitled Paul Ryan's Reverse Robin Hood Budget. The piece was notable because Blinder is an economist, yet the bulk of the article is unsubstantiated political attacks on Ryan and his 2012 budget proposal.

Here's how Blinder began his screed,

"Why do I oppose Rep. Pauly Ryan's plan for reducing the federal budget deficit, the one House Republicans approved overwhelmingly last week? Let me count the ways. Actually, since there is not enough space on this page to count them all, let me just hit the highlights."

He does, however, understand the key issue, when he writes,

"The no-so-hidden agenda is clear: to shrink the government drastically."

Blinder describes Wonderboy's second, reaction budget, as "another huge improvement over the Ryan plan."

Unlike an economically-oriented piece by, say, John B. Taylor, Alan Reynolds or Brian Wesbury, Blinder simply goes political, with a few selected statistics to support whatever he is ranting over in a particular paragraph.

That's odd, since Blinder is usually given space on the Journal's editorial pages for economics pieces.

Since he didn't bother to ground his editorial in economics, Blinder may be fairly judged on simply the politics and logic of his arguments.

Looking back over the past few weeks of posts, including this one concerning irrational expectations for social spending programs, as well as posts discussing Journal editorials by Taylor, Reynolds and Phil Gramm, it's easy to see that Blinder is one of those liberals living in a dream world.

Specifically, he has fallen into the Democratic party's deception that has been underway since 1935, when Social Security began. Simply put, unsustainable social welfare promises were made by some half-witted members of Congress, to be implemented in one of the nation's, if not the world's worst-designed systems.

Once these promises had been in place for 30 years, they became immutable social compacts. Sacred promises from a federal government newly-empowered in the 1930s and by WWII.

The trouble is, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as designed, were never sustainable or affordable. At best, they should have been designed as current-year funded social spending in the manner of proportional contribution, not defined benefits.

Further, they should have been billed as good-faith attempts by the federal government to help the least fortunate in the country, to the ability that the rest of the citizens could afford, modified going forward by best ideas.

Instead, we got a set-in-cement, common-pool, defined benefit approach for the ages.

Someone of Blinder's intellect and education should know better than to demagogue Ryan's plan as unfair and mean-spirited. The truth is, Ryan is right when he says that if we don't radically alter these programs now, they'll never survive another 25 years without bankrupting the US.

It's pointless to compare an existing plan which recognizes reality with 50 year old promises grounded in ignorance and false assumptions.