Red State

What do Liberals want?

What did/does Bill Ayers want?

What does Rev. Wright want?

What does ACORN want?

What do Democrats want?

What do most of Obama's supporters want?

What does Obama himself want?

In a word Change. They have all....every single one of says they want to change America. They do not like the America of the past that was founded upon the conservative values.

What is really facing America today is something that has been growing for a long time. Much like a frog sitting in a pot of water with the temperature growing more and more.

With this election, it is very possible that those who hate conservatives and who see us as a dangerious element in American society, could effectively hold the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch of our government.

They want to re-make America in their own image and with their own humanistic ideals. A few examples of what we can expect to see

• Gay marraige will be nationally recognised and legalized
• Government assisted abortions of all types legalized
• "In God we trust" will be removed from our currency, most likely when the G7 decides that a one world currency is the only way to fix the economic problems that exist and despite protest, Obama, the congress and the judicary will write into law the acceptance of one world currency system.
• Tax expempt status for religious schools/organizations/churches will be regulated or revolked.
• Unionization will take place on a large scale forcing businesses to comply with labor demands
• Socialist programs on a massive scale will be implemented.
• Businesses trying to move over seas to escape unionization will face penalties and tarrifs on goods that will make it impossible.
• The right to bear arms will be reinterpreted that only the millita or armed forces are allowed to bear arms.
• Freedom of speech especially in regards to the press will be regulated and controlled. Any networks against the liberal point of view will face immense intimidation through FCC licensing. Networks like Foxnews and radio talk shows like Rush Limbaugh will be given an ultimatium to conform or face the consequences. They will not conform and thus they will be shut down.

Our immediate problem is this election and seeing to it that Obama doesn't get elected so that they cannot control all of the power. However I just want to point out that the problem facing America is not just this election. It is against a continually growing number that what to redefine America from our conservative roots to a liberal America.

I hear many who scream in fustration, how can they not see the problems with ACORN, or with Bill Ayers, or with Rev Wright, or with the socialistic agenda of the liberal democrates? I just shake my head at their failure to open their eyes and truly see, that the reason they don't see anything wrong with Obama past ties, or with the things ACORM is doing, is because they see nothing wrong with them.

What people fail to realize is that Bill Ayers is a collge professor and many liberal people admire him. To a conservative, who's loyalty is to America and its founding principles, it just doesn't make any sense. But to those who want to see the old America destroy, just like Ayers did, they see and admire a person like Ayers for standing against the (evil) America. Some may not agree with the tatics he used, but they most definately embrace his philosophies and views of America.

As the list I mentioned above begins to be implemented, conservatives will become more and more hated and feared as they rise up in protest against these things. This will only add to the notion that liberals now currently hold of conservatives, which is conservatism is a form of radicalism that must be stopped. Conservatives will be given a choice to conform to the new system and ideology, or they will be systematically cut out of the system. You will not be able to get healthcare, you will not be able to work at a job, you will not be able have access to education, or even to buy food. And those caring and bleeding heart liberals will only point and say it serves you conservatives right.

I know some of you are saying, gez Rich this is a little bit over the top isn't it? This is America dude, none of that is going to happen.

Your fogetting my friends that it isn't America any more, and to think that none of this will happen is because you are using reason based upon America's founding princples of freedom and democracy. The whole point of this peice is to get you to open your eyes and see that those who are going to be the implementers of this, want to change America and destroy everything and everyone who wish to keep the old America alive. Just ask youself what is the liberal view of the constitution? With control over all three branches of government, they have the power and the means to legislate, execute, and write into law those things which support and agree with the liberal mindset.

This election is giving us one last shot to elect a president that will appoint conservative judges. Should we fail, those Americans that identify as conservatives will become a people living in a land that no longer wishes them to be a part of its society. Only those who will deny and conform will be accepted.

I was going to write up something defending school choice from the attacks leveled against it by Barack Obama last night, but I see that Andrew Coulson and Neal McCluskey have dealt with school choice and education policy issues at length in posts today. So I am glad to refer you to them.

As both Coulson and McCluskey note, while school choice is excellent and laudable, vouchers from the federal government are not the best vehicle for school choice. Public education tax credits are a potential alternative vehicle. An even better one would be to get the federal government out of the education business altogether and return authority to state and local governments--many of which are dying to carry out school choice policies on their own and would love to have the power and money to do it. According to Wikipedia, the Department of Education only began to operate on May 4, 1980. This means that somehow, the United States was able to 203 years and 10 months since its founding without a federal Cabinet agency that dictated education policy from Washington.

In those 203 years and 10 months without an Education Department, the world did not come to an end. Surely, it would not come to an end if the Department went gently into that good night. Indeed, given the sorry state of public education in this country and the fact that we don't get any bang for our buck despite the fact that "the U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education," one might be forgiven--and might be right!--for thinking that getting rid of the Department might be one of the best things to happen to American education.

A liberal co-worker and I have had a back and forth via email over health care. Here's some if it.

Me:

I was very bothered the other night in the debate to hear Obama, the champion of “change” try to scare voters by saying that McCain wants to do away with the tax break that employers get for providing health care. IF ONE IS EVEN A PASSING STUDENT OF OUR CURRENT SYSTEM, ONE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CURRENT METHOD OF EMPLOYER-FUNDING IS THE REASON WE ARE IN THE MESS WE’RE IN. I write that in all caps, because, if you don’t agree with that, there is no point in reading further.

I have to start with first principles. These are mine, not someone else's, though I am sure others believe them as well. They are not the only first principles I could list, but they are the most apt to this problem:

1. I believe that a free and open marketplace provides the best odds for distribution of resources in a market/economy.
2. I believe that individuals, given enough information, will make decisions that are in their best personal interest (this would include health care decisions, as well as financial decisions, among others).

I will stipulate these facts vis a vis the health care situation in the United States, and agree that addressing these issues would go a long way towards solving the problems many people see in the health care industry:

1. Health care costs are rising out of control, outpacing increases in wages, and even the inflation rate, and that this is a decades-long trend that any solution must reverse.
2. There are far too many people (who are not in transitory situations), who are without health insurance, and this number must be reduced, to zero as a goal.
3. A pure free market insurance solution will seek to apply higher costs to the sick.

Looking at the range of solutions, they are bracketed by a purely consumer based solution, where we all pay what the services actually cost, out of our pocket, and a completely government-run entitlement system, where we pay nothing at the time of service, but the system is funded by the government (through our tax dollars, deficit-spending, whatever schemes the government needs to devise to pay the providers). The answer lies somewhere in between these two extremes.

For me, in evaluating the health care position of a candidate, I care whether the plan adheres to first principles, as well as how well it will address the realities stated above.

Neither John McCain, nor I, are advocating turning each individual loose to handle health care costs on their own, negotiating with doctors separately. Obviously, insurance companies bring the power of a collective to bear, and use that power to influence the prices they pay to doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc. I don't think anybody with a serious proposal is suggesting anything other than using the insurance model for health care. I advocate having a system that encourages a national market for health insurance among many insurers, while at the other extreme are those who advocate a single insurer, the US Government.

My core disagreement with Obama's plan, is that the ultimate result is government will put itself in competition with private insurers, and due to its size, continuing demands from constituents, and Congress's insatiable appetite to buy votes, we will find ourselves with a single payer system. I realize "government run healthcare" is an invective to some, but, recall, I started this thread after Obama said that John McCain wanted to raise his taxes via the elimination of the employer health care tax credit, a statement that is arguably untrue.

Where the government is making decisions for us, we lose freedom. Since this is ultimately about freedom, the question voters should be asking themselves is, "Who do I trust to make decisions about my health care? Government bureaucrats, or myself?" You might say, how is that different from today, with the role of government bureaucrat played by a private insurance company?

The difference is, in the government case, you have no alternatives to choose from and decisions will be made by a government who is prepared to enforce its decisions at the point of a gun. In a thriving, free-market system, the disgruntled consumer would switch to another insurer. In a government-run system, are you going to throw the bums out? That doesn’t seem to have worked with most of the crises of our time.

I responded to his specific comments:

[Him] I think we can agree that the current system for health insurance and health care is broken. The discussion is how best to address it. Also note that I'm not convinced the Obama plan is the best plan.

[Jay] The current system of employer-funded health care is, indeed, if not broken, seriously flawed, and has been since its inception. Growing out of the Blue Cross days of the 20’s and 30’s, it was developed and expanded during WW2, in an environment of wage controls; offering health insurance as a way for employers to attract employees and retain them was later encouraged by the government through tax policy. Thus, we have our problem today. It was interesting to hear Obama praise this system in debate 2, and attempt to scare people that McCain wants to change this system. Some change there.

[Him]The first thing to point out is that "government run health care" is often thrown about like an invective.

[Jay] If everyone agreed the government ran things great, we wouldn't see it as an invective? I point it out and will continuously point it out, because I believe this is absolutely NOT the path I, nor the majority of Americans want to follow. As much as we know what caused this current mess, we do not want to replace it with what will ultimately be another, equally bad for the consumer, and really, really, really bad for the taxpayer, mess – which is what a single-payer, government-administered, system will be.

[Him]Since McCain has benefited from government run health care for just about all his life, it must not be all bad.

[Jay] Whoa! Do you think McCain went into the military and then public service because of the quality of the health care? I can tell you, having experienced the military health system firsthand, that most assuredly is not why he did it (maybe it had more to do with two generations of sailors before him?). Maybe he did go into politics for the health care. Having lived in DC, and been part of the DoD complex, I know what the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) is, and, actually, as a model for the solution, it may be close to what we actually want. The interesting thing about that, is during the Hillary-Care fiasco, at one point the Republicans were proposing (I think it was Phil Gramm, that wascally McCain advisor) that we extend the FEHBP to all Americans, under the guise that if it were good enough for Congress, it ought to be good enough for the rest of America. Of course, that is ancient history, and we still would have had to figure out the funding issues.

[Him]Furthermore, many other countries have found ways to improve the health care of their citizens through some sort of government intervention.

[Jay] And many have ended up with rationing (ending up with long waits for services) and price controls, and a two tiered system that sees the wealthiest either going off-shore, or paying doctors (in some cases illegally) under the table. I'm curious to hear the good examples.

[Him]So we need to stop using that phrase like some kind of scare tactic.

[Jay] I am resisting the temptation to launch into a tirade that “government-run health care” has now entered the lexicon as verboten. How about not scaring them about McCain’s plan?

[Him]One problem with free-market health insurance is you lose the bulk buying benefits of a group policy like you get with an employer (be it private or the government).

[Jay] I think you are confused by what I (and others) mean. No serious person is suggesting we do away with private insurance. We’re suggesting that the United States government not become the primary insurer of most Americans (it already is for seniors, military retirees, and the poor).

As Barney Frank might say, this is a shibboleth. You seem to assume we're all going to negotiate directly with our doctors. There are obviously still going to be insurers. They'll be private insurers, not the single payer that many government-sponsored (how's that sound) proponents favor. One of the changes McCain wants to make is to allow consumers to be able to cross state lines and buy health insurance. This would allow us all to seek the insurer who's plan most closely matches our needs and pocketbook, without being tied to some of the cost-creating legislation that some states like to add. Just as states like SD and DE make it easier for credit card companies to operate in their states, other states would become clearinghouses for health insurers. Ultimately, you’d see rationalization in these plans as consumers settle on the minimums acceptable to them. This would go a ways towards introducing free-market forces into a system largely devoid of them.

[Him]My recent MRI would have cost me $1200 out of pocket, but my health insurance company had negotiated a rate of only $630. The same is true for a private (or COBRA) insurance plan, it would cost me thousands of dollars more than the one with AT&T.

[Jay] The point is that bulk creates negotiating ability. Sure, I agree, but, without competition, don't we just create the New AT&T, only this time run by bureaucrats. I think we can all agree the consumer is much better off after telcom deregulation. Much the same would be true if we allowed the free market a greater hand in health care.

[Him]I personally hate the effects of the whole "Consumer Driven Health Care" movement. What it does is cause you to sometimes avoid a procedure or medical action if the cost is too high. And I'm not talking about elective surgery. Awareness is good. Choosing to avoid medical care because of cost is not.

[Jay] Perhaps the devil is in the details here. And, you need to recall that CDHP’s are a relatively new invention, and still limited by regulation. Democrats in Congress have successfully fought to place limits on what qualifies as CDHP’s and when you can use an HSA. Conservatives have long proposed that those very large deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses that it takes to today qualify as a CDHP/HSA be reduced, making them more attractive to consumers. This is another free-market reform we could achieve today. Regardless of WHO has thwarted this (Democrats), Conservatives and Libertarians want to see these plans made more available and more attractive, by decreasing those deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, and increasing the amount of money people can put into HSA’s.

Part of the reason I don't use the AT&T HSA plan is really the reason you cite here. The out-of-pocket expenses are too high for me, joining it with two kids and a wife. If I was 23, it would be a no brainer though. However, because HSA's are limited in number, they are also limited in what kinds of plans qualify for them. A more friendly Congress to consumer choice could help alleviate the problem you mention, by lowering the amounts on the plan to qualify for HSA, and increasing the amount of money you can put into an HSA. These are reforms and things conservatives have pushed for. However, in that these plans force the consumer to think twice about going to the DR for the sniffles, going to the emergency room for a little cut, or deferring care for items they shouldn't be wasting expensive doctor’s or ER time on, I think that's a good thing. I know when we were growing up, we didn't go to the Dr. for everything. People are conditioned to do that now, because the cost is shielded from them.

Do you have firsthand knowledge of someone who has avoided a medical care because of their participation in a CDHP? Or, is this theory?

[Him]No I do not agree with you that competition is the key to solving this problem.

[Jay] I know. I believe in the free market, and you may not. The fact that a purely free market would surely charge the sick more for insurance is a problem that we have to come to grips with when applying purely free market solutions to health care. That is the largest problem to purely free market solutions and is why this is such a difficult problem. But, I think we can design a system that maintains as many free market principles as possible and address the cost issue for higher-risk people, the portability problem, and the coverage problem. I’m not arguing as a Libertarian, who might just say – “let them eat cake.”

[Him]Here's a nice (and fair) analysis of their two proposals:

[Jay] I looked at the site. It seems a reasonable analysis of the plans as they stand today. I like the voting, obviously this site is hit by those on the left much more than those on the right. Even on the funding issue, where there is NOTHING good said about the Obama plan, the "voters" still give it an overall passing grade. Either the site is hit by partisans, or, people are willing to pay ANYTHING for what Obama is offering. At any rate, the analysis doesn't go far enough to suggest the ultimate result of Obama-care, which will be a government run single payer system.

[Him]Universal coverage is critical to any plan I would support, but I am concerned about what the Obama plan would cost.

[Jay] It would cost a lot. It would eclipse Medicare and Medicaid immediately and would rival social security. Plus, it would ultimately put the government in charge. You may trust your government to do the right thing, I don't. I see Obama's plan as a step towards socialism. The United States is not England, Canada, France, or Cuba. I will reject arguments that we should be more like them. We are the greatest country on earth precisely because we are not like them.

[Him]I would like to see the best of both plans, and other ideas, combined - but the likelihood of the country coming together is pretty slim.

[Jay] It won’t happen as long as Obama continues to scare people by telling them lies about McCain’s plan, as he dis in the debate and does on his stump speeches (I watched one yesterday, it was maddening listening to the misrepresentations).

More References for you:

• (Rationing in England)

• More on rationing in England. This from a socialist site accusing the NHS of using profit to not give health care

• Dated, but still relevant paper on the dangers of price controls and rationing in the health care industry

• James Capretta's Blog

The next President will have enormous problems in foreign policy. A resurgent Russia. An Iran which may soon possess nuclear weapons. A North Korea whose leader Kim Jong IL nearly died last month. His death would bring even more instability to this troubled nation. Experts believe that Kim's successor will be even more hostile to the West,even more militant. Since North Korea already has nuclear weapons and some of the most sophisticated missiles in the world, they are capable of striking any nation,even the United States. The war in Iraq must be ended properly or it will explode in our face later. We will continue to have problems with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He is the leader of the next generation of radical socialists.

Into this maze of lunatics,rabid anti-Semites,socialists and Islamic jihadists we are going to send in Barack Obama if the polls are correct ! This would be comical if it weren't a catastrophe. Obama's admirers in the press refer to him as the black John F. Kennedy. This is a joke. Kennedy was a hawk and an avid anti-Communist. Obama is not merely a dove. He is a man who will appease our enemies. He is the black Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain was the leader of Great Britain in the 1930's. When he tried to appease Adolf Hitler,the Fuehrer concluded the West was weak and a year later he invaded Poland,thus starting World War II !

Vladimir Putin,the Russian bear will smell the fear emanating from Obama when they meet. After their summit Putin will know the Ukraine will soon be his again. A tragedy is coming to the West. If Obama serves two terms as President,Russia will acquire all of their former territories. This is Putin's dream. He will realize his dream with a weakling like Obama in power. Obama is a man who thinks he can reason with tyrants. The only thing tyrants understand is brute force. Instead we are going to send in a college professor to confront the former head of the K.G.B !

In August, 2007, while speaking at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., Senator Barack Obama indicated a willingness to invade Pakistan's sovereign territory to pursue terrorists, whose location becomes known through "actionable intelligence." Now, running from such a brazen statement, his campaign would quickly point out that such position was conditional -- only if the terrorists were present in the mountains along the Pakistani-Afghan border and only if the Pakistani government refused to pursue these terrorists, would such an aggressive action take place. Nevertheless, Obama's position is frighteningly remarkable.

First, Senator Obama and his surrogates, including most recently ABC's Charlie Gibson, have often questioned the wisdom of President Bush's so-called "Bush Doctrine." The scope of this doctrine is much larger than that element typically criticized by Democrats - the notion of pre-emptive strikes to serve American national interests. You might remember that part of this doctrine also contemplated comparable American treatment, i.e. military action amongst other options, between those rogue states who promote terrorists and those states who give terrorists safe haven.

Are we to take from Senator Obama's position that he agrees with this element of the Bush Doctrine? If so, such irony has been lost in the months of debate and discussion of Senator Obama's foreign policy positions, which vascillate with the regularity of a metronome. Or is he, in fact, misunderstanding this element of the Bush Doctrine and, accordingly, misapplying it?

It is clearly the latter. Under no reasonable construction could the Bush Doctrine be used to justify a strike into Pakistani territory. Pakistan can hardly be viewed as a rogue state -- in fact, no other Asian country, with a comparably diverse population, has done more to stand by America's side in the war on terror. Invasion of Pakistan to chase down terrorists holed up in its rural mountains would be a perversion of the Bush Doctrine, not action authorized by it.

Most remarkable, however, about Senator Obama's appalling naivete concerns Pakistan's traditionally unstable political environment and its status as one of our world's nuclear powers. When Senator Obama announced his policy position, reaction in Pakistan was swift and virolent. Senator Obama was burned in effigy and staunch anti-American sentiment was voiced from Islamabad to the very mountains in question along its border with Afghanistan. It is safe to say that his comments contributed nothing to American-Pakistani relations and, in fact, further marginalized a very tenuous position then occupied by former Pakistani President Musharraf. None other than Senator Obama's current running mate, Senator Joe Biden, D-DE, remarked, "The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan plans that threaten their sovereignty."

Such naivete should alarm Americans, as we head to the polls, next month -- not because a candidate made a foolish statement some fourteen months ago, but because Senator Obama stands by those comments today. He has yet to provide clarity to a position which places a major Asian ally in the untenable position of supporting American foreign policy, while a potential president threatens its very borders with military action. Adding further instability to an already precarious American-Pakistani relationship does nothing to further our war on terror, does nothing to further the efforts to capture Osama Bin Laden and, more importantly, does nothing to minimize the possibility that a nuclear Pakistan becomes a prospective enemy should their nuclear arsenal fall into the wrong hands -- in fact, it furthers this latter possibility.

John McCain -- for the good of the current American/Pakistani relationship and to assure Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani and President Zardari that a McCain administration will respect Pakistani sovereignty -- needs to make the American voter understand that Obama's cavalier approach to American foreign policy is beyond mere ignorance, but palpably dangerous to our national security and the security of the free world. While Obama has given much fodder for such a McCain declaration, including his suggestions of unconditional discussions with Iran, Obama's August, 2007 statement on Pakistan is as good a point as any to bring this message home.

Taken from a blog post in The Anchorage Daily News

Republihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w

The problem with the financial crisis in America is not that it happened, but rather that we are trying to fix it the way we created it. The crisis was objectively caused by bad loans, the abundance of credit, and the plummet in home prices. Well, how do we get a plummet in home prices?

First, home prices must enjoy a lovely bull market (which they did) before they can plummet; why did they do that? Well, when more people want to buy a home then there are homes available, the price increases (basic economic concept). Why were so many more people buying homes? Well, the Democrats encouraged homeownership for everyone, which is objectively a luxury not a necessity, and said everyone has the right to own a home. This is completely false; everyone has the right to shelter, not to own a home. Anyways, that liberal ideal jumpstarted this mess when Bill Clinton put pressure on FNM and FRE to makes these loans to customers with poor credit who had no business owning a home, simply because they could not afford one. Reluctantly these companies agreed because as home prices skyrocketed they could make a bad mortgage, have the borrower default, and then collect the home at a higher price and make a profit. In mathematical terms: Value of Home X > Value of Defaulting Mortgage X = Profit... However, when the housing market began its freefall, the equation now looked like this: Value of Home Y < Value of Defaulting Mortgage Y = Loss and Massive Writedowns...Now guess who comes in and blames this problem on deregulation and the policies of Republicans? You guessed it, those Socialists...I mean Democrats. So what is their solution? Let's allow Henry Paulson (I have the utmost confidence in the former Goldman CEO but there is a much better way to execute this plan) to play hedge fund manager with taxpayer money with the exception that he needs to rewrite the principals of certain mortgages and reduce the rates in foreclosure mitigation efforts. This is a socialist idea! If we want to succeed, we must have the ability to fail. As hard as it is to say this, we need these people to lose there homes and we need these bad financial institutions to fail. If we want to enjoy the plunders of prosperity, we must experience the demoralization of defeat. However, there is hope for America; and that hope comes in the form of one man: John McCain. John McCain knows that the answer is not to fundamentally change the role of government in the financial system, but rather to support the free market ideas that have allowed America to prosper. Recently, he voted to pass HR 1424 to provide immediate relief to American families and tax benefits to encourage corporations to do business here. As a nation, we cannot allow Barack Obama's socialist economic policies to be deployed in office. For example, he wants the government to foot the bill for universal healthcare. The facts on the situation from the BEA: (1) 85% of employees have access to employer sponsored healthcare and the rest can be explained as the risk of owning a small business to take advantage of American capitalism, (2) the Federal Government already spends $100 billion dollars on the uninsured, and (3) 30% of those uninsured are between 18-29 and this demographic is less likely to experience health issues so that is an economic cost-benefit analysis decision they are making. John McCain's answer: Encourage competition in the healthcare industry. Every economist in America who deserves that title will agree that this is the correct decision. Competition will inevitably lead to more comprehensive coverage at lower prices, because the "invisible hand" of the market WILL correct this problem. Somewhere, Adam Smith is smiling...

When German troops invaded Poland in 1939 to start World War II,an American diplomat said, "If I'd only had a chance to talk to Hitler,this could have been prevented" ! There are some diplomats and leaders so naive that they actually believe that. There is no need to talk to the Hitlers of the world. They perceive that as weakness in their adverary's part. The only thing tyrants understand is sheer,brute force. Barack Obama is a naive,gullible man. He says that he intends to sit down and talk to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Talking to him would be like a criminologist trying to reason with a serial killer to persuade him to stop killing. What would the criminologist say? That killing is bad? Serial killers know it's bad. They kill because they enjoy it. Some of the leaders of the world are insane. Literally. Kim Jong Il is more than just ruthless,he is truly insane. This will not deter Obama. He will try to sit down with him and reason with him. He will also try to persuade Ahmadinejad to abandon nuclear weapons,but this is futile. The Iranian President is full of hatred toward Israel in particular and Jews in general. He wants to drop nuclear weapons on Israel. The nuclear weapons today are far more powerful than those dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Today's bombs can each kill up to a million people ! Since Israel only has six million people,simple arithmetic tell us that once Iran acquires these weapons they won't need very many to totally destroy Israel. Ahmadinejad has said time and time again that he wants to "wipe out" Israel from the face of the earth. He said it as recently as two weeks ago while he was at the UNITED NATIONS ! Hillary Clinton said during the primaries that if Iran used nuclear weapons on Israel the United States would "obliterate" Iran. She was attacked viciously by the press and by Obama's supporters,but she was right. Fear is an essential component of a superpower's arsenal. Does anyone think that any of the former Soviet Union's republics will dare to challenge Russia again after the way Russia crushed Georgia a few weeks ago? Nobody is going to fear Obama. Everybody knows he is all bluster. Everybody will fear John McCain because they know he means what he says. The Iranians laughed at Jimmy Carter. They were terrified of Ronald Reagan. George W.Bush and Barack Obama are two peas from the same pod. They reduce complex problems to simplistic solutions. Reason and logic have no chance against hatred and intolerance or against madness. Obama's naivete and gullibility are a threat to America's security and interests. His supporters like to say he is another John Kennedy. That's a joke. Kennedy was a hawk. Obama is another Neville Chamberlain.

During their debate this week Senator Biden is sure to bring up Sarah Palin's inexperience in foreign affairs. When he does, she must do what she has failed to do so far and that is to throw the charge right back in his face. She must turn to him and she must say to him, " Senator,for your information four out of the last five Presidents were governors before ascending to the Oval Office. Jimmy Carter,Ronald Reagan,Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had no foreign policy experience before becoming President. None. Two of them were Democrats and two were Republicans. The nation survived their lack of foreign policy expertise. In fact,these men reached the pinnacle of their Presidency in the field of foreign policy. Whether it was President Carter forging peace between Israel and Egypt or President Reagan winning the Cold War or President Bush dismantling the radical Islamist regime which supported Al Queda in Afghanistan,these men were able to succeed precisely because they had been governors. Governors are accustomed to making executive decisions. This is crucial when sitting in the Oval Office. Should I ever be called upon to make decisions on our nation's security,I will be prepared. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and was getting ready to invade Saudi Arabia,which if added to Iraq's supply of oil would have given him half of the world's oil supply, Mr. Biden voted NO to going to war against the tyrant who would have held the West and the rest of the civilized world hostage to his demands. That's the real difference between the Senator and I. If I'm ever called upon to be the Commander in Chief I will be prepared. If Senator Biden ever becomes Commander in Chief he will purchase an Arabian/English dictionary so he can learn to say, "I surrender" in Arabic."

The media has mocked the "Alaska proximinty to Russia" so called gaffe. I have a question for military personnel and Redstste readers.

When F-15's are scambled from Elmendorf AFB to confront Russian bombers are those aircraft not Alaska Air National Guard and the Governor is the CINC of those forces. Would not Gov Palin then have sent forces to protect the US? Something Obama/Biden have never done. Seems relevant to me!

Please correct em if I am wrong

One of the most often heard liberal talking points is that Barack Obama is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Here are some numbers that I got of Rush Limbaugh’s web site, but the source of the information is from the IRS:

• The top 1% of earners pay 39% of all income taxes
• The top 25% pay 86% of all federal income taxes
• The top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes

How is Barack Obama going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans when there are not even that many Americans that pay income tax?

George Washington said in his farewell address that the United States must avoid intrusion into foreign affairs. That we mustn't allow ourselves to get wrapped up in issues that do not concern us; but instead involve other nations. I wonder what George Washington would say about our role in the today's world. I often struggle with that question myself; as a strong believer in America as the beacon and the light guiding all oppressed people to freedom and hope I often find myself in the middle between world's last hope for opportunity and that dream of freedom and abundant prosperity, and world's overstretched police task force. You know I love my country more than myself, I truly do; but I often wonder how long we can play the role of police chief. I want America to remain the standard barer of freedom, and I know that no country will ever match our constitution, our freedom, and our way of life; but I worry about a few things.

I read a piece on Town Hall by Michelle Malkin and she talked about how many countries, and even our allies blame America for the growing conflicts and ills in the world. Our enemies are no new thing. Iran, Venezuela, Russia, North Korea all hate us. We're the "dark empire" according to Hugo Chavez. It seems those dictators have the same problem as the leftist sympathizers here at home; they equate American values and her people with an unpopular president. We must remember that these unstable leaders hate Bush so in turn they hate the country he represents. Although it's ironic these rogue leaders hate our guts yet they wear our jeans, eat our Big Macs and watch our movies. It's been said Kim Jong Il is a huge Hollywood movie buff. Ha, well he hasn't seen the latest crop of box office bombs; or maybe he has and maybe that's the reason why he likes Hollywood so much. I mean, they love him back right? Sean Penn cruising around with Chavez, Danny Glover shaking his hand, Steven Spielberg recalling a "dinner date" with Fidel Castro as quote "the most important day of my life". What about your marriage and the birth of your children?

But alas there is hope after all. More and more pro-American leaders are gaining power in these havens for Anti-Bush, anti-American suspiciously odd pro-Obama sections of the world. Nicholas Sarkozy in France, Angela Merkel in Germany, president Calderon in Mexico, President Saakashvili of Georgia, and Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus. These leaders share one political alignment and that is the conservative ideals they've adopted from our own conservative movement and leaders. So my concerns of a growing anti-America movement in the world for now has simmered a bit. Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad all have something in common. They hate America, rail against the "evil empire" to cover up there own. To pull the wool over their citizens' eyes by inflaming anti-American rhetoric and explaining and justifying their own brutal and authoritarian regimes as a "fight" against the great American devil.

But isn't that the most easy way out? To explain away harsh rule and oppression because you can't own up to those actions. You can't explain why you keep innocent people in the throws of poverty and limited freedoms and justice. All you can do is turn the subject to the world's newest and so far most effective scapegoat: the United States of America. Yes, because when you commit acts of murder against homosexuals, imprison political protesters and artists, keep women in the bowels of society as nothing more than dirt servants and receivers of mercy killings by way of stone to the head and body, deny one of the most horrific events in history, I speak of the holocaust, and throw a propaganda campaign at one of the most prestigious, albeit liberal universities in America. It's easy to blame us for your failed ambitions as dictators.

Hugo Chavez believes there's a plot on his life by the United States government. If we wanted to kill that cocaine peddling street thug we could have a long time ago. Once again he would use any excuse, no matter how idiotic to stir attention away from his poverty stricken country where he tried to manipulate the constitution so that he could remain in power. Yes, America's constitution has been used for "toilet paper" yet Chavez is the one who tried to rewrite Venezuela's so he could feed his need for more power. Gotcha.

I quote a wise man: *"Dictators use any weapon within reach to retain power and influence. One is the blade, the bomb, the bullet, and the mouth. The mouth they use to fire off rounds of propaganda bullsht at their brown shirt yes men".

This piece originally appeared at joshuatrevino.com.

Much ink has been spilled in the past 24 hours over a segment from ABC's Charlie Gibson's interview with Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. The clip reveals Palin momentarily confused when confronted with a query about "the Bush Doctrine," by which Gibson refers to the present Administration's practice of preemptive war (or, to be euphemistic, "anticipatory self-defense"). You may view the excerpt here, or simply read the relevant transcript:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

The consequence of this exchange has been the predictable and familiar litany of hand-wringing over Palin's purported ignorance of basic foreign policy principles, and her concurrent fitness (or lack thereof) to lead the country. See Andrew Sullivan for a succinct demonstration of the shrieking; the rest may be found via the usual suspects.

Sullivan writes: "[A]ny serious person who has followed the debates about US foreign policy knows what the Bush doctrine is." Charlie Gibson apparently agrees. They're both wrong. The fact is that the "Bush Doctrine" is a term which has had an evolving definition over this decade. Though it's obvious Palin was momentarily baffled by the query, she was far closer to the truth when she interpreted the phrase as signifying the President's "world view." What we know as the "Bush Doctrine" has many meanings. A brief survey reveals the following:

In March 2002, the New York Times's Frank Rich described the "Bush Doctrine" as the proposition, enunciated by the President, that "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

In March 2002, UK Guardian's Tony Dodge declared that the "Bush Doctrine" was a set of American-imposed principles for the conduct of small states, "concern[ing] the suppression of all terrorist activity on their territory, the transparency of banking and trade arrangements, and the disavowal of weapons of mass destruction."

In January 2003, Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute defined the "Bush Doctrine" as a principle of American global hegemony, with "anticipatory self-defense" as one of its enforcement mechanisms.

In February 2003, PBS's Frontline's "The War Behind Closed Doors" described the "Bush Doctrine" as the whole set of premises undergirding the 2002 National Security Strategy -- of which "anticipatory self-defense" is merely one facet.

In March 2003, Slate's Michael Kinsley put a unique spin on the "Bush Doctrine," by asserting it signified the President's claimed right to go to war without permission from international or domestic institutions.

In June 2004, the Washington Post's Robin Wright wrote that the "Bush Doctrine" was comprised of "four broad principles," of which "anticipatory self-defense" was only one.

In March 2005, Charles Krauthammer, in Time, described the "Bush Doctrine" as encompassing the policy of democracy-promotion in the Middle East.

In December 2006, Philips H. Gordon of the Brookings Institution defined the "Bush Doctrine" as encompassing a set of four basic assumptions, of which "anticipatory self-defense" was half of one.

In June 2007, Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada referred to the "Bush Doctrine" as the principle of democratization in the Middle East.

In July 2007, Senator Barack Obama described the "Bush Doctrine" as, as reported by ABC News, "only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States."

In January 2008 and in May 2008, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe described the "Bush Doctrine" as the President's warning to "the sponsors of violent jihad: 'You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.'"

Two things to note: first, that "any serious person who has followed the debates about US foreign policy" should know that describing the "Bush Doctrine" as the President's "world view" is actually rather apt; second, that even the Democratic nominee for president botches the definition by the Gibson standard. Logically, those denouncing Palin for unfitness to be vice president now, in these grounds, ought to be doubly concerned that Barack Obama is unfit to be president. This won't happen, of course, because this entire affair is a passing tactical "gotcha" rather than a serious critique.

There's a lot more where this came from -- see Ricard Starr's epic catalogue of ABC's own variations on the term's definition -- but this is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Charlie Gibson and Palin's critics got it wrong. Sarah Palin got it right.

I didn't think it was possible, but apparently, Nancy Pelosi has set the art of trash-talking back half a century or so.

Behold the argument. I buy it; I suppose that my concern is that someone else is determining what I ought to be nudged towards. And yes, since you asked, I am still hostile towards the basic concept of "libertarian paternalism."

Yeah, right:

Crude oil prices fell more than 5.4 percent on Friday in the biggest one-day slide since 2004 as dealers turned their focus to rising supply levels and weakening global demand.

A rebound in the U.S. dollar encouraged the sell-off, applying downward pressure across the commodities markets by weakening the purchasing power of buyers using other currencies, dealers said.

The slide adds to a more than 20 percent fall in the price of crude since mid-July and could increase the chance oil cartel OPEC will cut official production limits when the group meets in Vienna on September 9.

U.S. crude fell $6.59, or 5.4 percent, to settle at $114.59 a barrel -- the biggest fall in percentage terms since December 27, 2004. London Brent crude fell $6.24 to $113.92 a barrel.

"People who were buying yesterday are taking profits today," said Peter Beutel, analyst at consultancy Cameron Hanover. "There is also renewed technical selling and talk again of demand destruction. The dollar is strong again too."

In a just world, this whole episode would remind people that fundamentals like the laws of supply and demand do much more to determine the price of oil than do ridiculous conspiracy theories such as those mocked in the title of this post. But of course, we know that the punditocracy and appreciably large portions of the political class will fall back anew on their tired, old shibboleths the next time that there is an uptick in oil prices. Some people, alas, continue to refuse to take that all-essential Economics 101 class.

Today, Americans for Tax Reform released a coalition letter signed by 60 national and state think-tanks, advocacy groups, blogs and other organizations (including Red State.com) who are opposed to the so-called “Gang of Ten” bi-partisan energy compromise.

Why are the nations leading national and grassroots advocacy groups opposed?

Well...because the compromise is nothing short of a complete failure of Senate Republicans to support their House GOP counter-parts while being completely void of anything that could pass as comprehensive, fiscally sound energy policy.

While the House Republicans are actually doing something and fore-going their summer recess to demand a vote on drilling, the Senate skirts the issue of full OCS drilling and instead raises taxes on oil companies to the tune of around $30 billion.

Specifically, the five Republican Senators who comprise this “Gang of Ten” are signing their name to a Section 199 repeal, which is a tax increase. How much? Well, we don’t know yet because no one has seen the language.

But, you can be certain that if there is not a significant offset and the Sec 199 repeal does indeed result in a net income tax increase, that Grover Norquist will be watching as every single one of the five Republicans have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge which promises not to raise taxes.

I’m no genius, but I wouldn’t break my pledge in the middle of an election year. Lest we not forget Pledge-signer and Pledge-breaker Bush-41 and we all know what happened there.

A brief breakdown in approximate descending order of importance:

Offshore drilling - McCain supports in light of energy crisis. Before the energy crisis he opposed it. Obama supports it as of last week, but it is not clear why. He stated that it would be necessary to reach compromise with Republicans. He has since hedged his commitment to offshore drilling a bit stating that it should only be allowed when we have exhausted all the federally leased acres and only if environmentally sound. (The environmental provision would effectively result in a parallel to what has prevented most domestic drilling, as any environmental group can hold the drilling up in court for the entire lease period without ever necessarily getting to the merits of a case). Precipitating Obama's switch was public polling in favor of offshore drilling by a 59%-23% margin. This is likely to be perhaps the largest single action we can take to increase our energy independence at this time. Previously Obama attacked this idea since he believed it would not increase our oil supply for 5 years.

Nuclear power - McCain has called for 45 new nuclear plants to be built to generate huge amounts of energy for America. Nuclear energy is generally thought to be good, clean, safe, and cheap energy. In Europe, they have drastically reduced their energy costs and proven safe. Obama opposes developing any nuclear power plants.

Coal - Both candidates have supported expansion of coal, and development of clean coal technology. Even if Pennsylvania were not a swing state, this would still be a good policy.

Alternative energy sources - Sun, wind, and rain can all be converted into energy. Both candidates support greater utilization of these energy sources and investment in them. McCain states his is an "all of the above" approach to comprehensive energy solutions. Obama states that these technologies could create 5 million new American jobs.

Domestic drilling - Though 5th on the list, it is a major factor to my mind. With brand new drilling sites through the midwest, particularly in North Dakota, this could perhaps even be the largest source of energy. We won't know unless we allow more oil exploration. McCain supports drilling wherever we can find oil. Obama opposes expanded domestic drilling. His caveat is that if we use all the 68 million acres that are already leased by oil companies, (which are already incentivized to find oil where they can except they are held up in court often by environmentalists), then new lands could be considered. In short, he won't allow it. While making fun of McCain from the stump, Obama stated that McCain keeps saying "Let's drill here" even though he was inside once when he said it. Again, when Obama goes even a little off message, it often does not come off well.

Alaska pipeline and ANWR - It is well known that ANWR has enough oil to satisfy our energy needs for the whole country for several years, but both candidates oppose drilling there. McCain has hinted though that he might reconsider that stance if he felt the national interest and national security required it. Both candidates praised the construction of a pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states that Governor Palin and the Alaskan legislature approved and funded this week.

Inflate the tires - Obama has pointed out, correctly, that AAA and Nascar recommend we inflate our tires. He incorrectly asserts, however, that this could save more energy than offshore drilling could at 3-4%. McCain made fun of Obama on this point which irked Obama greatly. While its true we can inflate our tires, I don't exactly see that as a policy that will achieve resolution. Its not even a policy initiative. Its just an observation. To offer this instead of drilling is a really poor attack on his opponent's centerpiece to the energy crisis solution.

Windfall profits tax - Obama has proposed taxing oil companies on "windfall profits" and called John McCain the best friend of oil men and beholden to big oil. The Center for Responsive Politics, however, pointed out that it is actually Obama who has received more money from oil company executives than John McCain. Since this would invariably raise gas prices and eliminate the profit incentive for oil companies to drill in any new places, as well as increase our dependence thereby on foreign oil, I mark this as a terrible idea, perhaps the very worst proposal of his campaign.

Gas tax holiday - McCain (and Clinton) supported a gas tax holiday which would lower gas prices by the amount of the tax - a good 20-30 cents per gallon, throughout the summer. Obama opposed this as he did not believe it would be a long term solution.

Energy credit - Obama has proposed giving every working family a $1000 energy credit. This would not lower gas prices, but it would help somewhat with the pain at the pump. McCain has neither endorsed nor rejected this view but has indicated he would be open to measures that would help working families with their pain at the pump as well.

Entrepreneurial incentives - While both candidates have supported some incentives that would encourage scientific innovation, McCain has put more money there than Obama, including a $300 million dollar prize for someone who can perfect an economical electric engine for our cars, (which would save our country billions, perhaps trillions). Obama opposed that initiative.

Fuel efficiency standards - Obama has also proposed increasing the fuel efficiency standards on cars to in the neighborhood of 40 MPG. Short of market regulation, this would never happen, as the market clearly shows no signs of jumping there at this time. While this would save Americans on gas mileage, the downside is the R&D necessary to create those cars and the likely cost of the vehicles themselves would mean we'd all have to buy our cars for about an extra $20,000. Can't exactly regulate the market into creating economical fuel efficient cars.

Congressional action - As the Democratic majority Congress, (which since 2006 has seen gas prices rice from $2.30 to $4.10), takes its recess vacation, GOP Congressmen are staying on the Hill demanding the Democrats return. McCain has pledged that he would as President force the Congress back into session (The President has authority under the Constitution to convene emergency sessions of Congress during the recess) to solve the energy crisis. Obama has not criticized his fellow party members for taking the paid vacation while the pain at the pump continues across the country and we continue our dependence on foreign oil.

Rasmussen released a poll yesterday that found 61% of Americans say Congress "should vote on offshore drilling [for oil] right now."

The report said:

Six out of 10 Americans (61%) say Congress should return to Washington immediately to vote on lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But voters overwhelmingly expect Congress to adjourn this year without taking action.

Even more (67%) recognize that Republicans are the ones pushing for offshore drilling, and 77% say the issue is important to them in terms of how they will vote for Congress this November. Forty-five percent (45%) of voters say it is Very Important. Voters see a clear difference between the political parties on this issue as 61% perceive that congressional Democrats oppose offshore drilling.

While their leaders in Congress oppose a vote on drilling, half of Democratic voters(48%) think the Democratic-led Congress should return right away to deal with it. Just 40% of Nancy Pelosi's party disagree. Seventy eight percent (78%) of Republicans and unaffiliated voters, by a two-to-one margin, believe Congress should return to vote immediately.

Emphasis added. Rasumussen also released a report Monday that said 64% of Americans believe offshore drilling should commence immediately.

With such a clear WIN on this issue for Republicans, it's a mystery to me why we have Republican Senators who wish to undermine their own party on the GOP's best issue in years with this ridiculous "Gang of 10" farce.

This piece originally appeared at joshuatrevino.com.

What Mikheil Saakashvili began at his discretion, Vladimir Putin ends at his pleasure. The Russians have called a halt to their offensive in Georgia, and none too soon for the Georgians. What remains is the postwar settlement, and the American part in it.

A look at the situation on the ground speaks to the Russian dominance of the little Caucasian republic: the Russians have near-total freedom of movement in the western plain, with soldiers in Poti. Georgia's only meaningful lifelines to the outside world are the port of Batumi, and the long road to Yerevan. Neither of these are significant corridors for supply, and the port is free only at Russian sufferance. Further war would have seen a battle for Tbilisi in the coming 36 hours. The Georgians would have lost, and the war thence would probably have devolved into guerrilla actions centered about a sort of Georgian national redoubt in the south -- in regions populated more by Armenians and Azeris than by Georgians. To be spared all this is a mercy that Georgians, rightly inflamed by what's been done in mere days, may not fully appreciate.

The postwar settlement remains thoroughly opaque, even if, as the Russians report, the conditions of a ceasefire are agreed. The Russian war aim was never announced -- or rather, it only announced itself on the ground -- and its political end remains obscure. The formal disposition of the Russian-occupied secessionist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia must be decided; the mechanisms of reparation, if any, must be agreed upon; and, most troublingly, the Russians are making noises about extraditing Saakashvili to the Hague. Here, a definitive settlement is to everyone's advantage -- not least the Georgians, who are ill-advised to act as if they are anything but beaten. Absurdities like putting Saakashvili in the ICC dock should be rejected, but otherwise, it is almost certainly best to let the Russians dictate their terms -- and let resistance to those terms emanate from sources able to make that resistance count, like Europe and the United States.

With this in mind, the first task of America's postwar policy in the Caucasus is distasteful in the extreme: pushing the Georgians to understand and act like what they are, which is a defeated nation in no position to make demands. This does not square easily with American sentiment -- nor my own -- nor with the Vice President's declaration that Russia's aggression "must not go unanswered," nor with John McCain's declaration that "today we are all Georgians." Russia's aggression and consequent battlefield victory will stand, and as the last thing the volatile Caucasus needs is yet another revisionist, revanchist state, it befits a would-be member of the Western alliance to make its peace with that. However inflammatory the issue of "lost" Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in the Georgian public square, it is nothing that the Germans, the Finns, and the Greeks, to name a few, have not had to come to terms with in the course of their accessions to the first tier of Western nations. We should not demand less of Georgia.

The second, and more enduring, task of our policy must be the swift containment of Russia. I use the term deliberately: to invoke another Cold War-era phrase, we're not going to "roll back" any of Russia's recent territorial gains, nor should we attempt to reverse what prosperity it has achieved in the past decade. (That prosperity, being based mostly upon transitory prices for natural resources, will itself be transitory in time.) Russia's leadership has declared that it seeks the reversal, de facto if not de jure, of the "catastrophe" of the USSR's end. Though not marked by any formal decision in the vein of Versailles, this is nonetheless a strategic outcome that America has a direct interest in preserving. That interest has only gone up with the admission of former Soviet-bloc states -- and former Soviet states -- to NATO. Inasmuch as Russian revisionism threatens the alliance that has kept the peace in Europe for generations now, it must be confronted and deterred.

The obvious question is how this may be done with the tools America has at hand. It is a media commonplace over the past several days that the United States has no leverage over Russia. This is false. American policy can and does tremendously affect several things of tremendous importance to Moscow. A brief (though not comprehensive) list of available pressure points follows:

First, the Ukraine. First and foremost, there is no former Soviet state that Russia wishes to have in its orbit more than the Ukraine. Not coincidentally, the Ukraine was also the only nation besides the United States to render Georgia material assistance in this war, when it threatened to deny Sevastopol to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. European reluctance to antagonize Russia scuttled the Ukraine's potential NATO membership at the NATO Bucharest summit this past spring. In light of Georgia's fate, issuance of a MAP, or even outright NATO membership, to the Ukraine, is an appropriate riposte to Russia's war. Unlike Georgia, the Ukraine has no territorial or secessionist issues, nor an unstable leadership apt to launch unwinnable wars. It does, though, very much need the sort of guarantee that NATO exists to give.

Second, Russia's G8 membership. The G8 is purportedly the group of the world's largest industrial democracies. Russia, with a GDP smaller than Spain's and a per-capita income lower than Gabon's, was admitted in 1997 as a means of supporting its integration into international economic institutions. It's a privilege, not a right, and it should be conditioned upon responsible membership in the community of nations. Expulsion of Russia from the G8 is a longtime policy favorite of John McCain's, and it's time to consider his preference.

Third, Russia's client states. This is a short list, though Russian revisionism would wish to see it lengthen. Belarus is by far Russia's premier client, followed by varying degrees of Russian influence over Armenia, Serbia, Azerbaijan, and the central Asian states. (We'll exclude here clients like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, all of which have statuses that are dubious at best.) We've already seen that Russia reacts to defend Belarus when the latter is criticized. An available pressure point, then, is to turn up the heat on the Belarusian regime -- specifically with support of dissidents in Belarus -- and link it explicitly to Russia's behavior elsewhere.

Fourth, Russia's dissidents. Russian public life is nowhere near Soviet depths, but it is nonetheless notable that the Moscow regime places a premium upon the control of journalistic institutions and media. (A great, English-language example of the slick and statist nature of modern Russian media may be found at Russia Today -- note the stories on Georgian "spy rings" and refugees from Georgian aggression fleeing into Russia.) Divergence from the Putin line is a good way to end up unemployed or dead, and so we ought to lend what support we may to independent media personnel -- and their means.

Finally, Russia's Internet. A major tool of Russian foreign policy in the past few years is what may only be described as cyber-warfare. We saw it when Russia wished to punish Estonia, and we saw it again this week against nearly all of Georgia's .ge-domain sites. This is a tremendously thorny problem, both because cyber-war by its nature affords the perpetrators plausible denial, and because it is quite easy to respond to a wrong with a wrong -- in America's case, by using its leverage over Californa-based ICANN to invalidate .ru domains from which Russian attacks emanate. Here, the basic functionality of the Internet must be balanced against political concerns -- and there must be some mechanism for determining when political concerns from nations like Russia damage the basic functionality of the Internet.

Beyond applying pressure to Russia, American policy must focus upon reassurance to the NATO nations that expressed alarm at Georgia's subjugation. NATO allies Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Czech Republic all know quite well what it means to be crushed by the force of Russian arms, and all were therefore demonstrative in expressing their dismay at events in Georgia. If NATO and the American connection in particular is going to retain its meaning for them, it is up to us to provide the necessary reassurance. Although NATO is no longer a formally anti-Soviet (and therefore anti-Russian) alliance, we cannot pretend that it does not hold precisely that meaning for several of its member states. A failure to recognize this would concurrently weaken the alliance.

The war in Georgia is done but for the details, and the occasional sniping. Georgia lost on the first day, and Georgia has mostly -- though not wholly -- itself to blame. But if Georgia is prostrate, America and the West are not. If some good is to come of this, and if Russia's adventure in its "near abroad" is to be its last, we must act decisively -- and now.