You Wanted Change. You Now Have It! But At What Cost?

Despite the fact that a recent poll found that Americans now believe (by a 3-1 ratio) gas prices are a bigger problem than global warming, The Washington Post noted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., an avid opponent of offshore drilling, vows to block a drilling vote and even dialogue from occurring on the House floor. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., echoed the same sentiment when he eliminated energy amendments to his anti-speculation bill. At the same time, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., canceled committee consideration of spending bills for fear that Republicans would include drilling amendments.

When President Bush recently lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling, the ball was placed completely in Congress’ court to take the next move. But instead of Congress representing the majority of Americans’ wishes to drill for domestic oil, they once again are favoring a minority. Pelosi justified their inactivity by blaming the president: “What we’re saying is, ‘Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.’ … It is the economic life of America’s families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention.”

My first reaction to Pelosi’s recent congressional energy rebellion was to say, “What an anti-American, anti-reality-based form of representation.” To pass the buck back onto the president to “exhaust other remedies” when he took the first step in opening the way for drilling is not only a relinquishing of congressional duties but also another deliberate political avoidance to help the majority of Americans. Two years ago, before taking the congressional helm, Pelosi blamed the president for the energy crisis. Now, instead of providing any solutions at all, she still is blaming the president. Instead of spending her valuable time leading Congress in resolving our energy crisis, she’s kicking off a national tour to support her new book, “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters.” Is she in political la-la land?!

So just when I was about to go hit the punching bag (again) to alleviate my congressional stress, Rush Limbaugh helped to relieve my tension on his national broadcast. He spoke (again) for the majority of Americans (including me) against Pelosi’s desire to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: “But (about) that strategic reserve oil, a question, ladies and gentlemen: How do we get it? Maybe somebody should call the speaker of the House, send a note to her office: ‘Mrs. Pelosi, you want to release 700 million barrels from the strategic reserve. How did it get there? We had to drill for it, didn’t we?’ I mean, if she wants the 700 million barrels released in order to help with the price, which is not going to do that much, it’s not that much oil. It’s a one-time thing you can do. The oil had to be drilled. So drilling will lead to relief. We can drill our way out of this. We drilled our way into the strategic reserve.”

There’s something soothing that happens when someone on such a national scale as Rush Limbaugh speaks for you, which is exactly what’s supposed to happen with our representatives — especially the leader of our representatives — but often doesn’t. Compare the inept inactivity of Nancy Pelosi on this gas crisis with the informed activity of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Rush is politically savvy; Pelosi is politically cunning. Rush confronts government gridlock; Pelosi creates it. Rush gives solutions; Pelosi ground-n-pounds them. Rush says to drill here and drill now; Pelosi says not to drill now or later. Rush motivates Americans to action; Pelosi paralyzes the House to inaction. I would bet Rush has had more positive influence on Congress through the years by his broadcasts than Pelosi ever will from her House throne. If only Rush would seriously consider a run for her seat!

While I’m not espousing we canonize Rush and haven’t always agreed with him, I thank God for him and join with so many across the land in celebrating the 20th anniversary of his national broadcasts Aug. 1. He truly is a father of modern conservative commentary. And he is a model of intelligence, perseverance and might for us all, despite personal and political setbacks. He is a leader of leaders among that league of extraordinary gentlemen and conservative cultural crusaders — such as Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, John Kasich and Frank Pastore, to name a few — and, of course, a host of other conservative columnists, blogs and Web sites. I had the good fortune this past year of being among just a few others in an intimate dinner with Rush, and I found him to be every bit the gentleman, political and cultural sage, and quick-witted commentator in person as he is on radio.

Congratulations, Rush, on 20 years of broadcasting excellence, and many blessings on your next 20! Together, with all of our conservative voices, I hope we can turn around the waning passion of conservatives and liberal tides of our cultural war before it’s too late. Most of all, I pray that we ultimately inspire a new generation of patriots who will fight on-air, on the Internet and in congressional halls with a fire like Patrick Henry had rather than what Nancy Pelosi has.

     Chuck Norris

 For weeks (since the House abruptly adjourned for the summer), Republicans have been in Washington demanding Speaker Pelosi to allow an up or down vote to free America’s own energy from the Democrats’ embargo and ease the pain that Americans currently face at the pump.

Rather than offer solutions, Speaker Pelosi continues to insult the intelligence of hardworking Americans struggling to pay historically high energy prices. Members of Congress ought to do the jobs they were sent to do and remain in Washington until a solution to the country’s energy crisis is passed. Instead, Speaker Pelosi adjourned the House of Representatives for five weeks. Though she might have made environmentalists proud by turning off the floor lights, CSPAN cameras, and microphones behind her, they could not have been thrilled to watch her hop into her gas tax-exempt government SUV (no doubt with its tires correctly inflated) and her Air Force jet to go on a five-week, nationwide book tour. Her actions seem a little too far removed from the pain that hardworking Americans are feeling from high energy costs for comfort.

Perhaps Speaker Pelosi didn’t realize that House Republicans hear the American people loud and clear, and she certainly didn’t expect us to make clear that we have had enough of the Democrats’ embargo against the production of American-owned domestic energy. Over a hundred of Republican members have already opted to protest the Speaker’s vacation and have returned to Washington to demand that she call an emergency special session of Congress to vote on our “all of the above” American Energy Act. Surely $4 per gallon gasoline is more important to the American people than promoting a book. Since the protest began, thousands of Americans visiting Washington have come to the House floor to listen to common-sense Republican solutions that would increase American made energy.

Finally, last weekend, Speaker Pelosi broke her silence: her response was to ignore the pleas of the American people by offering more of the same failed policies that do nothing to increase production of American energy. Instead, both the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid remain worshippers of a radical environmental ideology and seem to be incapable of relating to the pain felt by working people.

Along with Senator Barack Obama, they propose a windfall profits tax on oil sold at or above $80 per barrel. It boggles my mind why, during an energy crisis, they would revert back to the failed policies of the Carter Administration that brought us two-hour waiting lines to fill our cars with gas to get to work. In fact, the Congressional Research Service found that domestic production of energy actually decreased because of the lame-brained tax.

The solution is quite simple: If we want gas prices to go down, then more oil needs to enter the market. If we want to lessen our dependency on foreign oil, then a windfall profits tax is the last thing America needs. Guess what? The American people know this.

Recent polling reveals that more than 70 percent of Americans favor increasing energy exploration and production at home. The good news is that for the foreseeable future, we have plenty of energy to produce in America.

Unfortunately — thanks to the Democrats and radical environmentalists — it is illegal to produce it. Congress has taken 75 percent of our onshore energy resources off the table, making them off limits to energy exploration and production. To put it simply, the only thing preventing them from getting it are Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid. In the House, the Speaker continues to block Members of both parties from voting on the comprehensive American Energy Act, which would increase the supply of American-made energy, improve energy conservation and efficiency, and promote renewable and alternative energy technologies. Would parents tolerate being told that we had enough classrooms for our kids, but we can’t use 75 percent of them? Surely not, nor will they tolerate being told so on producing American energy.

Why? The Speaker seems content to push a radical agenda that would increase regulation instead of exploration and taxation instead of production. She’s even told vulnerable members of her own party to express their independence from her radical ideas if it helps them get elected. Shame on them for not demanding a vote for their constituents, and shame on her for continuing to deny them what is right.

For months, Republicans have made clear that we need conservation, but not just conservation. We need renewable energy, but not just renewable. We need alternatives, but not just alternatives. We need to produce energy in America for Americans to drive down the cost of gas and increase our energy independence. Congress has both a duty and a historic opportunity to help free generations of Americans from the grip of foreign oil. Despite this, Democrat leaders have their heads in the sand avoiding options to increase American-made energy supplies. Conversely, Republicans have their hands in the sand looking for energy sources.

I haven’t found many people saying that they are paying too little at the pump, and people want Congress to be pro-active for once. So I hope that Blue Dog Democrats — for that matter, any Democrats — who understand this will work with us simply to allow a vote. Once we can have a vote on a real energy plan, we’ll get real American energy.

Republicans will continue to fight for a comprehensive, common sense energy plan that includes all of those goals. People across the country are begging Congress to act, and the time has come for the Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader and Democrats across Capitol Hill to either work with us to develop more American energy or get out of the way and stop blocking us from providing the help sought by the American people.

I’m sure that the Speaker will continue her book tour straight into the Democrat convention in Denver. So it’s hard to take her comments on energy seriously as she jet-sets around. She has every right to vote against the comprehensive American Energy Act offered by House Republicans — should she ever allow the House to vote on it. She does not, however, have the right to prevent a comprehensive, common-sense policy that nearly three-fourths of Americans demand.

If Speaker Pelosi were at all serious about helping the working people across our country, she’d cut her book tour short, stop flying across the country on her taxpayer funded jet, and get back to work with Republicans to alleviate the pain that Americans currently face at the pump.

Congressman Jeb Hensarling is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of over 100 conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives.

This past week, a 10-year veteran of the U.S. Border Patrol shot and wounded a man in the left buttock who assaulted agents at a violent stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite the fact that the man was among a group that was trying to enter the United States illegally and was throwing rocks and concrete chunks at agents, officials at the Mexican Consulate in San Diego are criticizing the agent and demanding the U.S. conduct a full investigation. Consul General Remedios Gomez Arnau said, “Any kind of shooting toward Mexican territory is rejected by the Mexican government. They should have waited for response of the Mexican authorities.”
   
Are you kidding me? Do I smell another Compean-and-Ramos case in the making? Do illegals think border crossing is nothing more than a game of cat and mouse? Do Mexican officials think we only are playing “rock, paper, scissors” at the border? When will we finally draw a line in the sand and stop this insanity at our nation’s boundaries? When will we back our agents and their Bill of Rights? When will we give them the complete resources, permission and support they need to carry out their duties fully?
   
Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Daryl Reed reports that there have been 330 assaults on agents already this year, compared with 254 reported incidents in 2007. It’s time for our government to ante up and protect and secure our borders and agents better.

Border security is so critical, of course, because it is about far more than just illegal immigrants. It affects the transport of drugs, weapons, gangs (such as MS-13) and terrorists, and it even affects issues surrounding national sovereignty. That is why I address our border troubles as one of eight major problems threatening America most in my upcoming (Sept. 7 release) book, Black Belt Patriotism, which is available for pre-order at Amazon.com. In the book, I give my critique of what is destroying our country and offer my solutions for rebuilding America and restoring the American dream. In particular, I lean heavily upon our Founders’ work and wisdom, looking to them for possible solutions to our present problems. In the next couple of columns, I’ll be giving readers a few first-seen excerpts from the book.

Here’s a glimpse from the chapter “Secure and protect our borders,” in which I also give (but not here) my solutions to deal with the 12 million or so illegal immigrants already residing in America:
   
“A few years ago I had the opportunity to fly along America’s borders with my good friend John Hensley, who was the assistant commissioner of U.S. Customs. We flew on a Black Hawk helicopter and checked out locations along the California border, where there was heavy traffic of drug dealers and illegal aliens coming into the United States from Mexico.
   
“As we were flying over the desert, we landed in the middle of nowhere. We stepped out of the helicopter and John asked me, ‘What do you see?’ I replied, ‘Absolutely nothing but desert.’ As soon as I said that, up popped U.S. border agents, who were hiding in holes covered by beige tarps that blended in with the terrain. They were waiting for illegal traffic trying to sneak into our country. I thought, what dedication this takes to hide out here in this intense heat for hours at a time — just waiting.
   
“There’s no doubt that Americans possess the resources and passion to close off our borders and ports from illegal immigration and contraband. If we can overthrow another country, we ought to be able to protect our own. Yet to this day, our national borders and ports of entry are like lattice work with plenty of holes through which illegals now come in.
   
“I don’t lay the blame on our dedicated border agents. But I do blame an overly bureaucratic government that still has not given agents the proper resources and permissions they need to get their job done. I also blame government for undermining national security by being more concerned with global commerce than national sovereignty. They would rather please the international masses than enforce our own laws.
   
“Let’s ask ourselves, why is Congress not securing our borders? Could it be they have greater global goals that will ultimately dissolve this Union? Whether intentionally or not, government has failed for decades to secure the borders. It is up to us to make sure it gets done, by taking several points of action that I’ll be outlining in this chapter. The time is now. And if we don’t do our part, America as we know it will dissolve like a sugar cube in coffee. From the coastland to the heartland, we will lose our distinctions and no longer even recognize our country. As President Ronald Reagan said, ‘A nation without borders is not a nation.’”

     Chuck Norris

August 18, 2008

By George Friedman

On Sept. 11, 1990, U.S. President George H. W. Bush addressed Congress. He spoke in the wake of the end of Communism in Eastern Europe, the weakening of the Soviet Union, and the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. He argued that a New World Order was emerging: “A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor, and today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.”

After every major, systemic war, there is the hope that this will be the war to end all wars. The idea driving it is simple. Wars are usually won by grand coalitions. The idea is that the coalition that won the war by working together will continue to work together to make the peace. Indeed, the idea is that the defeated will join the coalition and work with them to ensure the peace. This was the dream behind the Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, the United Nations and, after the Cold War, NATO. The idea was that there would be no major issues that couldn’t be handled by the victors, now joined with the defeated. That was the idea that drove George H. W. Bush as the Cold War was coming to its end.

Those with the dream are always disappointed. The victorious coalition breaks apart. The defeated refuse to play the role assigned to them. New powers emerge that were not part of the coalition. Anyone may have ideals and visions. The reality of the world order is that there are profound divergences of interest in a world where distrust is a natural and reasonable response to reality. In the end, ideals and visions vanish in a new round of geopolitical conflict.

The post-Cold War world, the New World Order, ended with authority on Aug.
8, 2008, when Russia and Georgia went to war. Certainly, this war was not in itself of major significance, and a very good case can be made that the New World Order actually started coming apart on Sept. 11, 2001. But it was on Aug. 8 that a nation-state, Russia, attacked another nation-state, Georgia, out of fear of the intentions of a third nation-state, the United States. This causes us to begin thinking about the Real World Order.

The global system is suffering from two imbalances. First, one nation-state, the United States, remains overwhelmingly powerful, and no combination of powers are in a position to control its behavior. We are aware of all the economic problems besetting the United States, but the reality is that the American economy is larger than the next three economies combined (Japan, Germany and China). The U.S. military controls all the world’s oceans and effectively dominates space. Because of these factors, the United States remains politically powerful, not liked and perhaps not admired, but enormously powerful.

The second imbalance is within the United States itself. Its ground forces and the bulk of its logistical capability are committed to the Middle East, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States also is threatening on occasion to go to war with Iran, which would tie down most of its air power, and it is facing a destabilizing Pakistan. Therefore, there is this paradox: The United States is so powerful that, in the long run, it has created an imbalance in the global system. In the short run, however, it is so off balance that it has few, if any, military resources to deal with challenges elsewhere. That means that the United States remains the dominant power in the long run but it cannot exercise that power in the short run. This creates a window of opportunity for other countries to act.

The outcome of the Iraq war can be seen emerging. The United States has succeeded in creating the foundations for a political settlement among the main Iraqi factions that will create a relatively stable government. In that sense, U.S. policy has succeeded. But the problem the United States has is the length of time it took to achieve this success. Had it occurred in 2003, the United States would not suffer its current imbalance. But this is 2008, more than five years after the invasion. The United States never expected a war of this duration, nor did it plan for it. In order to fight the war, it had to inject a major portion of its ground fighting capability into it. The length of the war was the problem. U.S. ground forces are either in Iraq, recovering from a tour or preparing for a deployment. What strategic reserves are available are tasked into Afghanistan. Little is left over.

As Iraq pulled in the bulk of available forces, the United States did not shift its foreign policy elsewhere. For example, it remained committed to the expansion of democracy in the former Soviet Union and the expansion of NATO, to include Ukraine and Georgia. From the fall of the former Soviet Union, the United States saw itself as having a dominant role in reshaping post-Soviet social and political orders, including influencing the emergence of democratic institutions and free markets. The United States saw this almost in the same light as it saw the democratization of Germany and Japan after World War II. Having defeated the Soviet Union, it now fell to the United States to reshape the societies of the successor states.

Through the 1990s, the successor states, particularly Russia, were inert. Undergoing painful internal upheaval which foreigners saw as reform but which many Russians viewed as a foreign-inspired national catastrophe. Russia could not resist American and European involvement in regional and internal affairs. From the American point of view, the reshaping of the region from the Kosovo war to the expansion of NATO to the deployment of U.S. Air Force bases to Central Asia was simply a logical expansion of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a benign attempt to stabilize the region, enhance its prosperity and security and integrate it into the global system.

As Russia regained its balance from the chaos of the 1990s, it began to see the American and European presence in a less benign light. It was not clear to the Russians that the United States was trying to stabilize the region. Rather, it appeared to the Russians that the United States was trying to take advantage of Russian weakness to impose a new politico-military reality in which Russia was to be surrounded with nations controlled by the United States and its military system, NATO. In spite of the promise made by Bill Clinton that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union, the three Baltic states were admitted. The promise was not addressed. NATO was expanded because it could and Russia could do nothing about it.

From the Russian point of view, the strategic break point was Ukraine. When the Orange Revolution came to Ukraine, the American and European impression was that this was a spontaneous democratic rising. The Russian perception was that it was a well-financed CIA operation to foment an anti-Russian and pro-American uprising in Ukraine. When the United States quickly began discussing the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO, the Russians came to the conclusion that the United States intended to surround and crush the Russian Federation. In their view, if NATO expanded into Ukraine, the Western military alliance would place Russia in a strategically untenable position. Russia would be indefensible. The American response was that it had no intention of threatening Russia. The Russian question was returned: Then why are you trying to take control of Ukraine? What other purpose would you have? The United States dismissed these Russian concerns as absurd. The Russians, not regarding them as absurd at all, began planning on the assumption of a hostile United States.

If the United States had intended to break the Russian Federation once and for all, the time for that was in the 1990s, before Yeltsin was replaced by Putin and before 9/11. There was, however, no clear policy on this, because the United States felt it had all the time in the world. Superficially this was true, but only superficially. First, the United States did not understand that the Yeltsin years were a temporary aberration and that a new government intending to stabilize Russia was inevitable. If not Putin, it would have been someone else. Second, the United States did not appreciate that it did not control the international agenda. Sept. 11, 2001, took away American options in the former Soviet Union. No only did it need Russian help in Afghanistan, but it was going to spend the next decade tied up in the Middle East. The United States had lost its room for maneuver and therefore had run out of time.

And now we come to the key point. In spite of diminishing military options outside of the Middle East, the United States did not modify its policy in the former Soviet Union. It continued to aggressively attempt to influence countries in the region, and it became particularly committed to integrating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, in spite of the fact that both were of overwhelming strategic interest to the Russians. Ukraine dominated Russia’s southwestern flank, without any natural boundaries protecting them. Georgia was seen as a constant irritant in Chechnya as well as a barrier to Russian interests in the Caucasus.

Moving rapidly to consolidate U.S. control over these and other countries in the former Soviet Union made strategic sense. Russia was weak, divided and poorly governed. It could make no response. Continuing this policy in the
2000s, when the Russians were getting stronger, more united and better governed and while U.S. forces were no longer available, made much less sense. The United States continued to irritate the Russians without having, in the short run, the forces needed to act decisively.

The American calculation was that the Russian government would not confront American interests in the region. The Russian calculation was that it could not wait to confront these interests because the United States was concluding the Iraq war and would return to its pre-eminent position in a few short years. Therefore, it made no sense for Russia to wait and it made every sense for Russia to act as quickly as possible.

The Russians were partly influenced in their timing by the success of the American surge in Iraq. If the United States continued its policy and had force to back it up, the Russians would lose their window of opportunity. Moreover, the Russians had an additional lever for use on the Americans: Iran.

The United States had been playing a complex game with Iran for years, threatening to attack while trying to negotiate. The Americans needed the Russians. Sanctions against Iran would have no meaning if the Russians did not participate, and the United States did not want Russia selling advance air defense systems to Iran. (Such systems, which American analysts had warned were quite capable, were not present in Syria on Sept. 6, 2007, when the Israelis struck a nuclear facility there.) As the United States re-evaluates the Russian military, it does not want to be surprised by Russian technology. Therefore, the more aggressive the United States becomes toward Russia, the greater the difficulties it will have in Iran. This further encouraged the Russians to act sooner rather than later.

The Russians have now proven two things. First, contrary to the reality of the 1990s, they can execute a competent military operation. Second, contrary to regional perception, the United States cannot intervene. The Russian message was directed against Ukraine most of all, but the Baltics, Central Asia and Belarus are all listening. The Russians will not act precipitously. They expect all of these countries to adjust their foreign policies away from the United States and toward Russia. They are looking to see if the lesson is absorbed. At first, there will be mighty speeches and resistance. But the reality on the ground is the reality on the ground.

We would expect the Russians to get traction. But if they don’t, the Russians are aware that they are, in the long run, much weaker than the Americans, and that they will retain their regional position of strength only while the United States is off balance in Iraq. If the lesson isn’t absorbed, the Russians are capable of more direct action, and they will not let this chance slip away. This is their chance to redefine their sphere of influence. They will not get another.

The other country that is watching and thinking is Iran. Iran had accepted the idea that it had lost the chance to dominate Iraq. It had also accepted the idea that it would have to bargain away its nuclear capability or lose it. The Iranians are now wondering if this is still true and are undoubtedly pinging the Russians about the situation. Meanwhile, the Russians are waiting for the Americans to calm down and get serious. If the Americans plan to take meaningful action against them, they will respond in Iran. But the Americans have no meaningful actions they can take; they need to get out of Iraq and they need help against Iran. The quid pro quo here is obvious. The United States acquiesces to Russian actions (which it can’t do anything about), while the Russians cooperate with the Unit ed States against Iran getting nuclear weapons (something Russia does not want to see).

One of the interesting concepts of the New World Order was that all serious countries would want to participate in it and that the only threat would come from rogue states and nonstate actors such as North Korea and al Qaeda. Serious analysts argued that conflict between nation-states would not be important in the 21st century. There will certainly be rogue states and nonstate actors, but the 21st century will be no different than any other century. On Aug. 8, the Russians invited us all to the Real World Order.