The Right Opposition

Since the end of World War II, the threat of nuclear weapons has hung over the globe like a giant mushroom cloud of fear. The Soviets pursued nuclear equality and, as some claim, achieved and surpassed it in the 1970’s. The fall of the Soviet bloc seemed to offer a glimmer of  hope that that the horrible prospect of nuclear annihilation was past.

Then came terror.

Deep concerns center on whether the present nuclear stockpile in Pakistan is safe from terrorists. The New York Times observes:

The dynamic today is much less stable, and more difficult for the United States to manage, as the turbulence in Pakistan shows. As the nuclear club expands, the security of weapons and technology diminishes. Terrorists would have no compunction about using a nuclear weapon, and their target could not easily retaliate against an elusive, stateless group.

Pay close attention to that last sentence: “Terrorists would have no compunction about using a nuclear weapon. Our world is not safer. With nuclear technology already in the hands of rogue states like North Korea it will not be long until nuclear blackmail will become a real, tangible  threat.

Just Eliminate Nuclear Weapons

It is against this background that President Obama is calling for the disarming of nuclear stockpiles. Supposedly the naive leader thinks that by eliminating our own weapons terrorists and rogue nations will suddenly fall in line and be nice. He seems to think that if we can just lead the way through example to nuclear disarmament all other nations will follow suit.

That sort of reasoning ought be suitable for impeachment.

When nuclear weapons were possessed by states and not elusive cells, one could attempt to reduce and verify nuclear weapons. Although several nations possessed such devices, (U.S., Soviets, U.K., France, China and probably Israel) monitoring was fairly easy and direct and nations could be held accountable for their behavior. However today, in the expanding nuclear club such verification is impossible and therefore should not be depended upon.

The idea of nuclear disarmament should be abandoned as an unworkable and potentially dangerous move which would place the U.S. at the mercy of less-inclined nations. Our national security demands that we possess these powerful weapons as a deterrent against those who would foolishly attack us. Only the threat of an overwhelming retaliation against their terror tools will give the terrorist pause.

President Obama, find a new verse to Kum Ba Yah and move on. This campfire is done.

New information that Nancy Pelosi has been caught with her pants down…huh that’s too awful to picture, maybe, she’s been caught with her hand in the cookie jar. Pelosi has been in the lead of critics of aggressive interrogations of unlawful combatants by the U.S. government. Now comes word that she knew about the aggressive techniques, including waterboarding, as far back as 2002!

Human Events, a conservative newspaper,  has the memo which directly contradicts the left-wing liberal’s assertion that she was never told such techniques were being used.

Surprising? No, not at all. It’s typical behavior for people inside the Beltway who are more interested in their own hide than the good of the country. What an embarrassment!

Alabama is closer to going head-to-head with private business interests along the Gulf Coast. The House has approved legislation which will create a luxury resort on state owned beachfront property. The state government will have a significant advantage over private investors and will unfairly compete with already established business in the area.

Two key provisions are to require the new facility to use state employees only. This nod to the state employees union will cause articifical upward pressure on wages which must be met by local businesses.

A second requirement is for local municpalities, probably Orange Beach, Gulf Shores and Baldwin County, to ante up a portion of maintenance costs. This will allow the state lodge to enjoy a lower cost of doing business and thus to be articfically more competitive.

Governor Bob Riley, ostensibly a republican, backs the bill. Riley is the same republican who sponsored the single largest tax increase in Alabama history - an increase which thankfully failed. Now he supports a socialistic move into private business. This is not the first time but it should be stopped nonetheless.

True conservatives, which Riley is not, knows that government has no business in business. Sell the land outright for a competitive price but do not harm businesses by giving unfair advantages to others.

Treasury says it has completed the so-called Stress Testing of the largest U.S. banks. Most passed which is certainly good news. With the economy showing signs of bottoming out and recovery beginning we should see the banks health returning soon, that is if the government will get out of the way and allow them to grow.

TARP money came with all kinds of strings attached which banks are anxious to shed. Treasury Secretary Geithner has been slow to allow the repayment of TARP money even though banks have the cash and are ready to pay. Heritage explains that the banks can repay any time but the government does not have to relinquish the stock and stock warrents demanded in exchange for the stimulus funds.

It’s time to let the banks return the funds without penalty and return the money back to the federal treasury. Let’s put the debacle of federal intervention in the markets behind us.

Alabama Governor Bob Riley is again trying to move the state into a deal that could see Alabama competing against private business interests. The Governor, ostensibly a Republican, wants to turn prime beachfront property along the Gulf of Mexico into a luxury resort. The land is presently part of a state park. An old beach convention center and lodge was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan in 2003. He has been rebuffed by the state Supreme Court after a four year legal contest but is back again with a new plan.

Government enjoys inherent advantages when competing in the private sector. Freedoms from taxation and inconvenient building ordinances are but two. And the line between enforcement of various business regulations and the operation of the business is also frequently blurred. Does anyone really expect the state to be tough on the state?

The conservative view is that the state should simply sell the land outright. However it is possible that Alabama can level the playing field by creating a true hands off leasing arrangement with a private business. Any leasing plan must include several key portions.

1. The lease should be competitive as determined by nearby lease arrangements on the waterfront. A long-term lease must account for inflation.
2. The land and all development on the land must be subject to precisely the same tax structure as nearby businesses including all local, state and federal taxes and fees.
3. There can be no sweetheart deals with state employees or union groups. The leasing business must operate under the same environment as competitors.
4. Lease payments may not be deferred or adjusted for the life of the lease. If the state wishes to function in the commercial world it must act like a commercial interest.
5. There must be no state-granted protection from litigation. Business exposure must be the same as all other commercial interests.

Such terms will make the lease less attractive to be sure but in the long run it will be far better for the overall economy along the coast.

What are you thoughts? Comments are open.

One central tenant of conservative thought is that the economy should be left to function with a minimum of central government involvement. The present intertwining of government and business is a recipe for disaster marked by rising inflation, decreasing profits and decreasing productivity. As government intervenes it slowly brings its inherent advantages to bear against thos remnants of capitalism that have managed to remain untouched by expanding government.

An example comes this week from Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, ranking member of the Senate banking committee. Shelby is calling for hearings into whether Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pressured Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch last fall.

Politico reports that pressure included a threat to remove the entire Bank of America board of directors if they did not go through with the deal. Hearings are possible if Democrats agree.

Recall that the entire mortgage banking fiasco that triggered the recent economic downturn was supposedly caused by Clinton-era moves to expand home ownership by pressuring lenders to grant loans to those not properly qualified. Of course, there will never be hearings on that claim - it’s too important for the dems to protect Barney Frank.

Arlen Specter has pressed campaign financing to its lowest point. Specter has a website called Specterforthecure. While it seems to be a site to raise funds for cancer research it is in fact a campaign fundraising site. Michele Malkin has the details.

Here’s a quick post to tell you about a blog that doesn’t necessarily have a conservative view but does have a way of scaling things for us. It helps us better understand the enormity of the U.S. Federal budget and the miniscule trimmings proposed by President Obama.

Take a look at The federal budget, rescaled at What’s New. You will have to overlook some of the math-speak at first but then scroll down for the numbers. It’s fascinating.

Clark County, Nevada, home of Las Vegas, has filed a criminal complaint against ACORN, the left wing voter registration group closely allied with President Barrack Obama and the Democratic Party.

According to Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, 39 counts have been filed against the organization and its principles in Nevada. The group denies the charges.

According to Masto, ACORN paid people based upon the number of voter registrations brought in each day including bonuses. Such payments violate Nevada law.

A full report is found in  the Las Vegas Review Journal and includes PDF files of the charges. A hearing is set for June 3 in Las vegas.

Jeff Sessions

Alabama’s junior Senator, Jeff Sessions, will soon find himself center stage for the first big showdown of the Obama administration.

Sessions has been chosen as Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee after the previous Ranking Member, Arlen Specter jumped shipped. Sessions has proven to be a strong member with solid conservative views and credentials. We expect that he will ask tough questions of President Obama’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sessions is not without baggage, at least from the liberal perspective, and we will no doubt hear about it.  The Women on the Web blog is airing it out already as are some others. But as WoW asks, is it wise to target someone for something said 20 years ago?

We encourage Senator Sessions to ask the tough questions and demand clear and forthright answers. Obama’s choice could help set the tone of the high court for many years.