Is this an overblown conspiracy theory, or could malicious software really damage America’s infrastructure? The disruption of Iran’s nuclear program by the “Stuxnet” computer virus demonstrates the potential of military advantage through CyberWarfare and serves as a warning of new threats facing America.

In June 2010, a Belarus computer security company named VirusBlokAda discovered a powerful malicious software program named Stuxnet.[1] Further investigation showed a highly sophisticated and targeted attack:

• Nearly 60% of the infections were found in Iran within three months of the first detection.[2] Normally, computer infections are widespread in a similar way human viruses are transmitted.
• Stuxnet relied on portable USB devices, which allowed virus spreading on systems isolated from the Internet. Once installed, the virus has great ability to spread and avoid detection.[3]
• Control systems used by manufacturers were targeted instead of consumer or business systems. Stuxnet targeted Siemens control software working with a specific “frequency converter” drive from a specific manufacturer.[4]

Researchers concluded that Stuxnet targeted motors in Iran’s Natanz or Bushehr nuclear enrichment facilities. Natanz presents a greater risk of producing weapons-grade uranium. Stuxnet’s job was to sabotage the uranium enrichment process. By causing the motors to speed up, slow to nearly a stop, and then speed up again, the enrichment process would not run properly and might produce unexpected results.[5]

Stuxnet appears to have started infecting Iran systems in June 2009. The secret-telling Wikileaks site reported that a “serious” nuclear incident occurred in the Natanz facility at that time. Statistics show that the numbers of operational Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuges decreased in 2009 from 4,700 to 3,900.[6]

The Obama White House and Israel have leaked information showing that Stuxnet was jointly created to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.[7]

Cyber attacks have not yet crossed over to the horror and cost of real-life warfare. However, our ability to defend our borders and protect trade is being challenged every day. It takes only one technically savvy attacker to cause serious damage. With our enemies now including rogue states, drug lords, and cyber criminals, we cannot be protected by the Cold War strategies of the past.

As threats from new CyberWarfare techniques grow, we must demand that our government act with urgency to protect our vital infrastructure. Our national security depends on it.

This is the second in a two-part series on growing threats and strategies in the Internet age. CyberSecurity at Risk Part 1: Growing Threats demonstrates the rising impact of CyberCrime on business and that CyberWarfare is a key military strategy our enemies are quickly grasping. CyberSecurity at Risk Part 2: Changing the Rules Again shows the national security strategies needed to protect our vital interests.

In the fast-changing CyberSecurity world, staying one step ahead of attackers has never been more challenging.

Recently, a virus that infected 30,000 computer workstations attacked the Saudi Arabian oil company Aramco. Aramco took their main website off the Internet for several days. Credit for the attack came from a group called the Cutting Sword of Justice.[1]

During 2009 and 2010, U.S. and Israel released the Stuxnet virus to secretly disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment progress.[2]  Because Stuxnet is old CyberSecurity news – and as attackers catch up – we must change the rules of the game again.

Maintaining security in the Cyber world starts with the basics. However, stealing secrets is always easier if the front door is unlocked with nobody watching.

In February 2012, the hacker group Anonymous published 78 email addresses and passwords from the Syrian government: 33 of the 78 passwords were either “12345” or “123456.” On the same day, Anonymous leaked a series of emails from inside the Syrian government.[3]

Are we doing any better than Syria securing our vital national secrets? In 2011, Gmail experienced a phishing attack from China that targeted personal email accounts of White House staff. A phishing scam seeks to get people to reveal IDs, passwords, and account numbers. The attackers’ aim was likely to uncover official White House business or national security secrets being discussed in private email or on home computers.[4]  Due to the common practice of using the same passwords at home and work, did the Chinese actually find much more?

Failed CyberSecurity Strategies

How well has the Obama administration done defending our cyber borders and protecting business and trade?

In the last legislative year, the House and Senate voted on differing national CyberSecurity bills. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, passed in the House, was co-sponsored by the Democrat and Republican senior representatives on the Intelligence Committee. Obama, however, threatened to veto this measure that encourages companies to share cybersecurity information. The CyberSecurity Act of 2012, openly supported by the Obama White House, was defeated in the Senate when the Senate split over mandating cybersecurity standards for private businesses.[5]

Despite this loss in the Senate, the Obama administration is pushing a Presidential executive order with key provisions from the failed Senate bill.[6]  Why would the White House deliberately go around the legislative process?

Rather than strengthening our defenses, the failed CyberSecurity Act of 2012 and likely Presidential executive order impose government oversight and interference, and add the following risks to businesses:

No protection from lawsuits – Information sharing is key to handling a Cyber attack. Leaked drafts of the proposed executive order do not include limits on companies being sued for sharing information about a cyber attack with the government. If companies need to frequently check with their lawyers on potential exposure to lawsuits, the timely flow of information will stop.[7]

Even by adding protection against lawsuits in the CyberSecurity legislation, businesses may still hesitate to share vital information with government and each other. Food safety may be one of the few examples where the government and business have established the practices to quickly share information.

Government mandated standards – The Administration’s executive order seeks to impose “voluntary” CyberSecurity standards on critical industries.[8]  Would businesses be slapped with lawsuits from customers or shareholders for failing to meet “voluntary” security standards?

CyberSecurity Leadership Agenda

So challenging is the Cyber threat that at the recent DefCon hacker conference, National Security Agency General Keith Alexander asked hackers to help make the Internet secure and defend privacy.[9]  While this might lead to interesting relationships with the hacker community, a strong CyberSecurity leadership agenda must instead be created.

We can no longer be satisfied being one step ahead of the other side as we were with Stuxnet. All it takes is one talented and motivated individual to penetrate our cyber defenses that cost billions of dollars to build and maintain.

Here are a few key issues we must address in a rapidly changing technical world:

Create a partnership between government and business –The need to build readiness extends to businesses such as banks, power companies, communications, and other utilities in partnership with government. We cannot wait until an attack to ensure communication lines are in place between business, government and military.

Cut through or eliminate the layers of bureaucracy – Due to privacy concerns, many government agencies can’t share information with each other. Sharing Cyber intelligence between agencies is critical to ensuring our nuclear program, military forces, and intelligence agencies can meet an attack with proper force. Furthermore, eliminating needless CyberSecurity mandates and regulations minimizes government overreach.

Continue investing in CyberWarfare capabilities – General Keith Alexander recently said the Department of Defense will reach full CyberWarfare readiness by 2014.[10] With the public sector in competition for prized talent in the private sector, adding the talent and systems to build readiness requires long-term funding, leadership, and discipline.

Define the rules of engagement – Our forces will only be successful in the case of a Cyber attack if the following questions are understood.[11]

• Who is the attacker?
• What is the immediate response?
• What command structure is in place to make the decision for a greater response?

In the Cyber world, the identity of attackers is easily covered up. Suppose the U.S. retaliated against an attack only to discover the real attacker cleverly pointed the evidence elsewhere?

Cyber attacks have not yet crossed over to the horror and cost of real-life warfare. However, our ability to defend our borders and protect trade is being challenged every day. It takes only one technically savvy attacker to cause serious damage. With our enemies now including rogue states, drug lords and Cyber criminals, we cannot be protected by Cold War strategies of the past.

With new CyberSecurity threats, we must demand that our government act with urgency to protect our vital infrastructure. Maintaining our competitive advantage and national security in a post 9-11 world depends on it.

For more solutions to the problems facing America in a post 9-11 world, go to truecapitalism.org

This is the first in a two-part series on growing threats and strategies in the Internet age. CyberSecurity at Risk Part 1: Growing Threats demonstrates the rising impact of CyberCrime on business and that CyberWarfare is a key military strategy our enemies are quickly grasping. CyberSecurity at Risk Part 2: Changing the Rules Again shows the national security strategies to protect our vital interests.

The digital revolution has turned mainstream. Just 30 years after the first PC, we celebrate progress with each new iPhone and iPad release. Facebook was the highly publicized initial public offering of stock for 2012. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates are household names.

Hazards of the same digital age have also gone mainstream as many of us experience identity theft, online scams, computer viruses, and online predators. With the growth of social media and mobile devices providing new opportunities for criminals to ambush the unsuspecting, the Cyber world is a dangerous place for our citizens and nation.

Cyber threats take on two primary forms:

CyberCrime makes big money from industrial espionage, fraud, spam, viruses, and more. Symantec estimates the cost of CyberCrime is $338 billion globally. Cybercrime is more lucrative than the drug trade.[1] There has been a dramatic rise in attacks on small businesses over the last six months while the attacks on large businesses have declined; 36% of attacks are now on small business.[2]

CyberWarfare has been on the rise more than a decade with the objectives of achieving a battlefield advantage and dominating covert operations. The U.S. and Israel developed the computer virus Stuxnet to secretly disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment process. Stuxnet accidentally “escaped” due to a programming error and was discovered in 2010. In a New York Times article, author David Sanger disclosed strategies used by the White House to deploy Stuxnet.[3] The White House is under investigation by the U.S. Attorney General for classified intelligence leaks.[4]

Those seeking to exploit any weaknesses in our defenses are talented and motivated:

Organized crime syndicates – Russia leads in making a business out of CyberCrime. The breakup of the Soviet Union and their lax government oversight led highly motivated and talented former state-security operatives to join with organized crime. “They’re incredibly persistent. If it takes a year to set up their targets, then they’ll wait the year,” said Jose Granado, Ernst & Young’s information security practice leader.[5]

Rogue nations – A recent Department of Defense report stated, “Sensitive U.S. economic information and technology are targeted by the intelligence services, private sector companies, academic and research institutions, and citizens of dozens of countries. Chinese actors are the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.” The “actors” – those who steal and disrupt – use a variety of methods to take intellectual property ranging from computer intrusions to more personal methods. Chinese intelligence services exploit people with ties to China to steal trade secrets using insider access to corporate networks.[6]

With Russia and China possessing the capability to push CyberWarfare forward, other nations are making strides. North Korea recently increased its CyberWarfare unit to 3,000 elite staff.[7] In an address to the U.S. House subcommittee overseeing CyberSecurity, General James Clapper was reported as saying Iran’s cyber capabilities “have dramatically increased in recent years in depth and complexity.” [8]

Highly-motivated individuals – It takes only one technically savvy criminal or attacker to cause serious damage.

Some prosecutors are learning to use the Internet to go on the offensive. U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan told a press conference, “People think that cyber criminals cannot be found or apprehended. Today we know that’s not true. You cannot hide in cyberspace. We will find you. We will charge you. We will extradite you and we will prosecute you.” [9]

Our Nation at Risk

Our national infrastructure is susceptible to two types of attack:

• Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack – Shuts down computer systems by high volume of traffic and superiority of attack. For example, a DDOS attack in September 2012 disrupted at least six large U.S. banks. Security experts stated the Middle East group claiming credit, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters, must have had help. Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, believes the attacks were sponsored by Iran.[10]
• Stuxnet-like attack – Stuxnet succeeded in covertly disrupting critical infrastructure inside Iran. The next Stuxnet may be pointed at the U.S. as a cunning means to disrupt operations or steal secrets.

President Obama recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal Opinion section that his administration made CyberSecurity a priority, since “the cyber threat to our nation is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face.”  He added, “So far, no one has managed to seriously damage or disrupt our critical infrastructure networks. But foreign governments, criminal syndicates and lone individuals are probing our financial, energy and public safety systems every day.” [11]

Have we succeeded in advancing the CyberSecurity priority? Three years ago, Stuxnet dictated new rules in CyberWarfare. Yet Stuxnet is old CyberSecurity news. As attackers become more sophisticated, we must change the rules of the game again.

The next article – CyberSecurity at Risk Part 2: Changing the Rules Again – looks at key CyberSecurity strategies taking us beyond the Cold War and to government’s role in protecting our vital interests.

For more solutions to the problems facing America in a post 9-11 world, go to truecapitalism.org

In the wake of the brutal killing of our Libyan ambassador and three other Americans, questions are stirring about what the administration knew and when. Are we witnessing the unfolding of a cover-up with broader consequences?

The event timeline of these fatalities shows U.S. intelligence knew of terrorism ties within 24 hours of the attack.[1] The White House response? Carefully worded condemnations linking the attacks to an anti-Muslim video. U.N. Ambassador Rice spoke on the Sunday morning shows five days later saying the attacks, “…began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where…there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.” [2]

The administration’s story began to unravel eight days after the killings with answers to Congress by Mathew Olson, National Counterterrorism Center Director, saying the Americans “…were killed in the course of a terrorist attack…” Secretary Clinton later agreed. In his speech to the U.N., Obama continued to blame the video. Fifteen days after the attack, Press Secretary Carney was forced to switch his tune, saying Obama’s view was that this was a terrorist attack.[3]

Obama’s absence of forceful condemnation of the terrorist attack is an attempt to appease his voting base and radical Middle East leadership. Instead we are forced to endure statements like “bumps in the road.” Judgment and decisiveness are the first casualties of a weak leader.

Focus by mainstream news media was initially aimed at Romney’s response and the video. The toughest questioning of Obama came from Hispanic-oriented Univision.[4] Charles Krauthammer rightly points out the administration’s willingness to deceive after gloating over the killing of bin Laden, and the mainstream media not headlining the real story.[5]

Washington cover-ups should remind us of the 1970s Watergate era. Mainstream media’s tough questions compelled Congress to act, and a bad president was removed. There is nothing new about politicians playing by their own Washington Rules: Democrats and Republicans have done it for years. Why is today’s mainstream news media playing by Washington Rules to support another bad president? It is time for the new Woodwards and Bernsteins to challenge the rules again.

Paul Quanrud is a writer and blogger with American Citizens for Economic Freedom (http://truecapitalism.org/). 

Second in a two-part series on the path from ObamaCare to Paul Ryan’s Roadmap 2.0 plan for health care. Read Part 1 here about targeting ObamaCare’s economic war and Constitutional challenge. In Part 2, we take Paul Ryan’s path from our current culture of dependency to health care reform.

As an abrupt “about face” to soaring government spending for White House-sponsored programs, Rep. Paul Ryan announced his much-needed fiscal recovery plan, A Roadmap for America’s Future Version 2.0. Ryan calls the American people “to restore a national character rooted in individual initiative, entrepreneurship, and opportunity.” [1] We will not do so unless we restore the true role of government.

The Ryan health care plan is born out of two inescapable conclusions: ObamaCare is unsustainable and health care must be reformed.

Here are the grim facts:

* Health care is the fastest-growing burden on American families and businesses, adding 7% in overall costs each year.[2]

* In 2007, it cost an estimated $2.1 trillion to manage and fund health care, nearly twice per person than any other industrialized nation.[3]

* Based on 2009 estimates, 50 million people – 19 percent of the non-elderly population – would lack access to health insurance at some time in 2010.[4]

* Federal government spends more on Medicare and Medicaid (21.7%) than national defense (17.8 percent, including war costs).[5]

* Health care costs take up 15.2% of GDP.[6] If the growth rate continues, health care costs will consume 20 percent of GDP by 2016.[7]

In a grave assessment by Rep. Paul Ryan on entitlement programs, “…a failure to reform puts those programs, and their benefits, in greater jeopardy; and the longer reform is delayed, the more wrenching the inevitable changes will be.”[8]

What does real reform look like?

* Reform Medicare and Medicaid by giving a set amount to individuals in these programs to buy private insurance (voucher system) that controls cost, allows individuals choice of coverage, and level of care.

* Reconnect healthcare consumers with healthcare providers via Health Savings Accounts and high deductable insurance plans.

* Tax credits for individual health insurance.

* Interstate sale of health insurance promoting competition between health insurers.

* Medical malpractice liability reform.

* High-risk pools, at the state level, for those who cannot obtain health insurance because of preexisting conditions.

Healthcare reform is needed, but Obamacare is not the answer. The road to reform leads to repairing a greater measure of America’s brokenness beyond health care – but only if we take the journey.

By scrapping the high-cost of ObamaCare (remember, government has no incentive to be efficient) in favor of “healthy” market-based competition (pleasing customers on a level playing field) costs go down. Unraveling serious health care problems is possible by connecting consumers to providers with greater assistance by the state – rather than federal government.

Instead of “big government” serving those it made dependent through high-cost programs (repealing ObamaCare is the start), the government role is changed (no small task with Progressive power elites in office) to create a level playing field for all Americans as much as possible. The road to reform untangles the Progressive’s “culture of dependency.”

60 Years of Dependency

Our modern-day Progressive reality is borne out of the 1930s New Deal and 1960s Great Society. Through numerous interventions by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, our country was devastated financially and in spirit. New Deal programs (e.g. Social Security, Works Progress Administration) led government away from “limited powers” of the Constitution (Jefferson, Hamilton) and changed the relationship of the American people to government by increasing dependence.[9]

The Great Society (President Johnson learned from Roosevelt) brought greater federal expansion of entitlement programs (e.g. food stamps, federal housing, Medicare, Medicaid) and other big spending (e.g. Interstate Highway expansion, Vietnam War).

Soaring budget increases through Obama-sponsored entitlements and spending dwarf the New Deal and Great Society expansions. No federal program reveals President Obama’s plan for big government dependence and spending more than ObamaCare. Our federal debt now exceeds GDP[10] and costs to service the debt may triple by 2016.[11]

With refreshing clarity, Ryan describes the Progressive “deal” with worried Americans and its dangerous result. “Rarely before have the alternatives facing America been so starkly defined. For the past year, Washington’s leaders have taken an already unsustainable budget outlook and made it far worse. They have exploited Americans’ genuine economic anxieties to justify an unrelenting and wide-ranging expansion of government.”[12]

Our economy cannot stand under the economic weight of ObamaCare, much less the total federal regulatory burden. An uncertain future ahead, we are “perilously close to a ‘tipping point’” with little likelihood of turning back.[13]

tipping point  (‘tɪpɪŋ)

— n

the crisis stage in a process, when a significant change takes place[14]

Two Americas, Only One Choice

“Progressive America” over the last 60 years, was built on an attraction to bigger-than-ever federal spending and entitlement programs with government as the “middle man.” Our future “Prosperous America” is forged by the initiative and creativity of Americans backed by government creating a level playing field to the degree possible.

If we do nothing, “Progressive America” continues on. “Prosperous America” will be ours only if we fight for it. Starting with repealing ObamaCare and serious health care reform, we can regain our financial footing, and loosen the hold of dependency.

The path to health care reform is now blocked by Progressives in power (the House quickly passed Ryan’s budget legislation and the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected it). ObamaCare remains the law of the land until the American people act to elect new leadership in 2012.

Learn more and take action in the fight to get our country back on the road to prosperity:

* Read Dr. Rick Skoog’s important article on the ObamaCare’s financial failure, reduced care, and broken promises.

* Read Rep. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap introduction to see how Progressive policies from the 1930s have led to a culture of dependency and a tipping point.

* Find out whether your Senator and Representative voted for ObamaCare in 2010 and if they support the Ryan Roadmap approach now.

Do your part to make needed changes in our next White House and Congress. The cost of Obamacare to our nation is too great – both financially and for our personal freedoms. Work in your community to mobilize volunteers (Tea Party, caucus) to get out the vote. Together we can win the 2012 fight but we must act quickly.

No federal program reveals President Obama’s plan for big government dependence and spending more than ObamaCare. While promising to reduce the numbers of “uninsured” without increasing debt, reality tells a story of staggering financial impact and unsound Constitutional basis.

In stark contrast, the release of Rep. Paul Ryan’s economic plan, “A Roadmap for America’s Future Version 2.0,” strikes at the heart of President Obama’s big government policies. Ryan’s Roadmap is a difference-maker showing that responsible spending can shrink deficits and provide greater opportunities. The contrasts cannot be greater, or the stakes higher.[1]

ObamaCare’s Staggering Economic Impact

With the American people now owing more in federal debt than they earn, the ObamaCare tab is overwhelming and punitive, even for a government-sponsored program.

* Health care costs continue to climb. In 1960, health care costs were 5.2% of GDP; in 2010 they were 17.9%.[2] By 2019, the government estimates that health care costs will reach 19.4% of GDP.[3]

* Overall spending has increased. Annual spending in the Obama years climbed more than 20% to a projected $3.6 trillion in 2012. Previously, government spending averaged 20% of GDP; it is now 24% – without considering ObamaCare.[4]

* We owe more than we produce. With debt levels greater than GDP, our country owes more than we produce each year.[5] The country is nearly $16 trillion in debt, and will jump to $20 trillion by 2015 – without considering ObamaCare.[6]

* The ObamaCare bill will come due. According to Sen. Jeff Sessions, Senate budget committee chairman, ObamaCare will result in a $17 trillion funding gap (money we do not have but are committed to spend). Estimates are based on methods used by the Medicaid and Medicare research center (they report to the White House).[7]

* The uninsured problem is not solved. It’s estimated that by 2019, approximately 23 million people will remain uninsured under ObamaCare.”[8] Workers, businesses, taxpayers, and those truly needing assistance are all at risk.

Supreme Court Takes a Hard Look at ObamaCare: Is Obamacare unconstitutional?

While Obama’s Progressive policies take a page from the 1930s New Deal and 1960s Great Society through entitlements and government influence, a sinister side has emerged. Oral arguments for overturning ObamaCare were heard in March 2012 by the Supreme Court after a majority of states (26) filed suit. The strongest Constitutional challenges came from the justices.[9]

Confronting the Constitutional question of ObamaCare’s control of the health care market and forcing individual purchase, Justice Scalia used an analogy, “Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.” [10]

In sharp questioning, Scalia and the other justices dissected the ObamaCare “individual mandate” sham: If Americans are forced to buy health insurance and the government regulates the purchase of that insurance, we can be forced to buy anything. Where will it stop? [11]Obamacare is unconstitutional and is only the beginning of government mandates and regulations on citizens’ everyday lives.

The chilling effect of ObamaCare on the 26 states filing suit, was a central concern of the Constitution’s writers. Seizing independence from England in an economic war was the only course for American colonists trapped by a powerful central government, creating unfair trades to benefit the influential few at the expense of the individual. Americans endured law after law impacting their trades…until they hit a tipping point. As a result, our leaders created the Constitution with limited federal powers, states rights, and separation of duties between branches to protect us from unlimited powers of the federal government. Alexander Hamilton said, “It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.”[12]

With the decision to overturn ObamaCare in the hands of the Supreme Court, either ObamaCare or the Constitution as originally intended will prevail – we cannot have both. An economic war is upon the American people as Obama’s signature law requires for the first time, purchase of specific health insurance. What is next? The Paul Ryan health care plan, as a part of a larger overall roadmap to prosperity for the United States, provides some answers to the questions about the state of our financial situation and personal freedoms.

Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap to Prosperity

With economic “takeover” of the health care industry by the White House and looming financial failure as a backdrop, Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap presents a compelling case that the President’s Progressive policies have brought our country to a tipping point.

tipping point  (‘tɪpɪŋ)

— n

the crisis stage in a process, when a significant change takes place[13]

Ryan’s plan provides valuable insight into the expanding culture of dependency, proven history of failed Progressive policies, and critical solutions needed to rescue the country from fiscal crisis.

In the next article – Paul Ryan’s Health Care Plan Part 2: Path to Prosperity – we examine the Progressive’s culture of dependency and Ryan’s achievable health care plan.

A Time to Act

The House of Representatives quickly passed the Ryan Roadmap legislation in March 2012. With a Democrat majority in the Senate, that body rejected the legislation. Our goal is fiscal accountability by the President and legislature. ACEF is dedicated to mobilize Americans to action with the facts, and provide responsible policy on health care and other key areas.

Here are three actions you can take now:

* Get educated on health care dangers and solutions. Read the healthcare articles on the ACEF website.

* Read the introduction to Rep. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap.

* Ask your House Representative and Senator if they support the Ryan Roadmap plan.

With repeal of ObamaCare in our sights, we are in the fight of our lives (remembering the writers of the Constitution) to stop coming economic devastation as the result of unlimited federal government powers. The cost of Obamacare both financially and for our personal freedom is too large. Time is short, join the 2012 fight.

In his recent $3.8 trillion budget announcement for 2013, President Obama presented a new national defense strategy and foreign aid priorities. With regime change and unrest in the Middle East, will Americans continue to be safe? Do we know what we are funding?

Priorities Gone Awry

Regarding foreign aid, the President’s 2013 budget (voted down 414-0 in the House of Representatives) “establishes a new $770 million MENA (Middle East North Africa) Incentive Fund, which will provide incentives for long-term economic, political, and trade reforms to countries in transition—and to countries prepared to make reforms proactively.” [1]

With two of the recipient nations – Egypt and Tunisia – having changed regimes through violent protests in 2011, incredibly we are funding countries moving quickly toward Islamic fundamentalism.

In 1979, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed on to the American-brokered peace deal with Israel. Since that time, Egypt has been the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid behind Israel.[2] In 2011 the pro-American Hosni Mubarak – who became Egypt’s president after the 1981 assassination of Sadat – was overthrown as violence and Islamic fundamentalism swept across Egypt and the Middle East. In a wave of anti-American sentiment since the revolt, relations between the U.S. and Egypt have been tense.

A crisis over American-sponsored non-governmental organizations (NGOs) led the Egyptian government to file criminal charges against Americans they prevented from leaving the country. In October 2011, one Egyptian official claimed that the U.S steered the course of Egypt’s transition toward “a direction that realized American and Israeli interests.”[3]

The following statements were seen in the February 15, 2012 editions of state-funded, and widely-distributed, Egyptian newspapers. “America is behind the anarchy,” (front page of the Al Gomhuria newspaper). “American funding aims to spread anarchy in Egypt,” (front page of Al Ahram newspaper).[4]

The seed for violence in Egypt – in some measure – comes from the brutal tactics of the pro-American Mubarak. Over the length of his time in power, Mubarak’s police forces killed, illegally detained, and threatened his many enemies.[5] The lasting failure of the Bush and Obama presidencies is that they did not hold in check the growing reign of terror by Mubarak against his enemies. The radical Muslim Brotherhood was able to feed off the anger of the Egyptian people to successfully oust Mubarak, and blame America for our well-funded support.

In Obama’s 2013 budget proposal, $1.3 billion is designated for military aid to Egypt, the same as 2012.

Under a condition placed by Congress for 2012 aid, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must certify that Egypt is abiding by its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, holding free and fair elections and “implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association and religion and due process of law.”[6]

In effect, Congress ordered the White House to deliver a level of accountability concerning Egypt.

Yet disturbing questions remain:

* Given Egypt’s dismal track record, what possible assurances could they give to guarantee our funding will fulfill our conditions?

* Why do we continue funding Egypt after they overthrew their pro-American leader a year ago, imprisoned and detained Americans, and strengthened ties to Islamic fundamentalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood?

* Will we fight tomorrow against a military force and former ally (Egypt) we are funding today?

Out-of-Control Washington Spending Forces Change in Defense Strategy

In January, President Obama announced a new strategy for the defense of our nation. “I called for this comprehensive defense review — to clarify our strategic interests in a fast-changing world, and to guide our defense priorities and spending over the coming decade.”[7]

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared, “It really does represent a historic shift to the future.  And it recognizes that this country is at a strategic turning point, after a decade of war and after large increases in defense spending.”[8]

A debt crisis caused by excessive government spending has led the President and Defense Secretary to propose a reduction in the size of planned increases in defense spending over the next 10 years. Upcoming budget “sequestration” (special rules for spending cuts by Congress) may force actual cuts in defense spending.

Since 9-11, our military has adapted to fighting Islamic fundamentalists who are quite willing to kill Americans on our own soil in their hatred of the “Great Satan.” With our troops removed from Iraq, the military focus in the Middle East has shifted to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. President Obama has announced the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan by 2014.

Were we ready 10 years ago for 9-11 and the fight against terrorism? No.

Are we ready to meet the latest challenges from the Middle East?

With changing defense strategies and questionable foreign aid, our ability to remain safe from our enemies is being threatened. President Obama’s 2013 expenses would add $1 trillion to our debt. Added to our current $16 trillion of debt, the White House and Congress must provide the fiscal responsibility and military courage to protect our country.

Americans need to be informed about the impact of budget cuts and our ability to defend our borders. Start by asking your representatives where they stand on automatic cuts forced by upcoming budget “sequestration,” and which defense priorities they will fund. Challenge the continuing renewal of foreign aid to countries with loyalties shifting from the U.S. and toward our enemies.

On March 13, President Obama held his first press conference in five months. In preparation, Lachlan Markay of the Heritage Foundation released Ten Questions Obama Should Be Asked at Tuesday’s Press Conference. Question 6 says, “Does China’s decision to boost its defense budget by more than 11% give you any pause about repeatedly slashing our own military capabilities?”[1]

While highlighting China’s obvious military focus, this question exposes our own eroding military advantage and reminds us why Washington’s overall spending is so dangerous.

With a backdrop of budget cuts, President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta announced in January 2012 a “strategic review” of our defense capabilities. They plan to reduce growth of military spending by deploying a smaller standing army (estimated reduction of 10 to 15% over 10 years) and other cuts, while emphasizing tactics such as drones, “cyber” warfare,[2] and special operations forces.[3]

The White House foundational shift raises further questions about our future military capabilities that must be answered by the President and his defense secretary.

* With “specialties” such as drones, cyber, and special operations increasing as necessary tactical elements, can they be deployed in a wide range of scenarios?

* Is it effective to thin out the number of rank and file soldiers to save costs? How will our military respond to two major deployments simultaneously?

The tide of war is changing as our economy crumbles. The U.S. ceased military operations in Iraq and will withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014. Planned military spending levels will be reduced while the American people are overwhelmed with 8.3% unemployment and $16 trillion in debt from bloated federal spending. Despite their own “recession,” China’s continuing laser-like focus on trade and security is a key to understanding their higher military spending and aggressive moves in the region.

With territory disputes involving Taiwan, Vietnam, The Philippines and other countries, China is expanding its military and trade presence in the South China Sea. With shipping routes estimated at $5 trillion in trade annually, the stakes for control are high.[4]

China is speeding up their military development. The testing of a Chinese aircraft carrier[5] and release of a new carrier-based jet fighter (J-15 Flying Shark) add new dimensions to China’s military future. China’s first aircraft carrier, a 1980s Russian warship retrofitted with modern weapons, will be online in 2012[6] and analysts say the J-15 made its first flight August 2009.[7]

When former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was in Beijing in January 2011, China conducted the maiden flight of a prototype of their new stealth fighter, the J-20 Mighty Dragon. “This thing is political; they really want to show some muscle to the U.S.A.,” said Andrei Chang, Hong Kong–based editor in chief of Kanwa Asian Defense.[8]

While the U.S. F-22 Raptor fighter (first delivered in 1998) is more agile, the Chinese J-20 carries more weapons and fuel.[9] A concern is that the F-22 will be aging as the Chinese J-20 comes online in several years.

In response to China’s rise in the region, President Obama announced plans for 2,500 U.S. troops in northern Australia and stated, “the United States is stepping up its commitment to the entire Asia-Pacific region.”[10] The U.S. military will conduct joint military exercises with The Philippines.[11]

While the President is supporting allies to help maintain their trade routes and defense, our military challenges would multiply if tensions with China grew much worse and other regions of the world triggered at the same time.

For example, while Israel and the U.S. are discussing action to destroy Iran’s potential for nuclear weapons, Iran is threatening to block the Straits of Hormuz to stop oil shipments. Multiple U.S. aircraft carriers are poised in the region to take action if needed.[12]

American military capabilities face broad challenges precisely when plans are being made to reduce traditional weapons and troop levels. As Italy reduces the number of their F-35 fighters from 131 to 90, (they are being crushed by high debt levels and a lagging economy too), the U.S. could cut $1.6 billion from our F-35 fighter jet program as part of U.S. weapons cuts.[13]

If there was ever a time, however, for retooling our military at high levels to maintain our tactical edge, it is now.

I recently spoke to a friend deployed in Iraq within the past 5 years.  He asked an important question: As we shift away from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, will we retain our military capabilities gained during the last 20 years?

My friend’s concern should haunt the Obama administration over cutting levels of military spending and de-funding defense projects. The White House has limited our military options due to their excessive spending that brought our country to the edge of fiscal disaster. Our most pressing risk is out-of-control government spending.

With gut-wrenching irony, the American taxpayer is effectively funding China’s military build-up. China holds over 7% of U.S. debt ($1.1 trillion[14] out of our $15.5 trillion total). Based on 2011 Treasury data, U.S. interest payments to China are estimated to be over $31 billion annually.[15] We pay a large portion of the cost of China’s $106 billion 2012 military budget owing to the excessive government spending that resulted in crushing U.S. debt.[16]

It is time for courageous leaders who will address global threats head on. Congress must demonstrate its leadership by challenging the President to protect our borders and not lower our military capabilities.  The 2012 elections are crucial for the American people to select leaders truly committed to the defense of our nation.

Get informed on national defense and foreign policy issues, and consider, “Does China’s decision to boost its military defense while Obama is cutting ours give you any pause?”

On March 5, 2012, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama. This was their ninth meeting in three years, and the stakes have never been higher. The potential of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is a direct threat to both Israel and the U.S.

Before their meeting, Obama and Netanyahu shed little light on their disagreements over Iran.

In a statement made 24-hours earlier to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama stated, “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored, an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”[1]

Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to Obama’s AIPAC speech by saying he was pleased with the president’s remarks. “I very much appreciated the fact that President Obama reiterated his position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that all options are on the table. Most important of all, I appreciated the fact that he said that Israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat.”[2]

Based on their public statements, you would expect that diplomatic efforts and sanctions have had some success in stopping Iran. Not true. Obama wants diplomacy and more time for sanctions against Iran to work, and Netanyahu needs the U.S. to back Israel, as the potential for military action becomes more imminent.

Iran is steadily moving toward atomic weapons, a situation verified by the United Nations. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated in November 2011 that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” and that their efforts may still be under way.[3]

In June 2011, outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that most intelligence estimates predicted Iran was one to three years away from building a nuclear weapon.[4]

While Iran appears to be nearing the ability to use nuclear weapons (against Israel and elsewhere), the internal political pressure to do this very thing has been ratcheting up inside Iran. With an economy based on oil exports, Iran has been in hardship the last several years. The popular Iranian Green movement is picking up support while the Islamic fundamentalists, led by Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are doing all to maintain power.

To stir up public sentiment in Iran against the U.S. and our allies, Khamenei recently said that “the arrogant powers are bullying us to maintain their prestige.”[5] Whether they call us “arrogant powers”, or the “Great Satan”, the Islamic hardliners inflame the Iranian public to keep themselves in power. The Islamic fundamentalists used the connection of the U.S with the Shah of Iran, to gain power in 1979. Islamic fundamentalists have been in power since the Islamic revolution.

The Shifting Balance of Power

Dramatic shifts in the balance of power are occurring in the Middle East due to Iran’s progress toward atomic arms. If the U.S. hesitates in applying pressure on Iran, and is slow in support of Israel, the balance of power may tilt permanently toward Iran and away from the U.S.

In a statement to an Atlantic reporter, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, Yousef al-Otaibaif, said, “There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran. Small, rich, vulnerable countries in the region do not want to be the ones who stick their finger in the big bully’s eye, if nobody’s going to come to their support.”[6]

Arab states will not wait for the U.S. to deal with the nuclear threat imposed by Iran. As Iran quickly becomes the emerging power of the region, and if the U.S. backs away from our role of strategic defense, Arab countries will want to strengthen their own security by aligning with Iran (Iranians are not of Arab heritage, they are Persian).

The United States and Israel cannot afford to watch the dominos fall to Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. World War I exploded as the dominos (countries) in Europe fell one by one, and the major powers doing too little. It will be too late for us to act if the dominos (countries) in the Middle East begin to fall.

By destroying nuclear reactors in Iraq (1981)[7] and Syria (2007)[8], Israel has clearly demonstrated they are not afraid to eliminate weapons that might be used as weapons against them.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is asking for the firm assurances that the U.S. will support Israel when Israel must act militarily to defend itself against the development of nuclear capability by their enemies.

President Obama faces tough questions as he considers the aggressive behavior of Iran and the lack of success of his diplomatic approach and relatively mild sanctions:

With the opposition Green Movement in Iran, why did Obama refuse to support their efforts to stand strong against Islamic fundamentalists?

Can we believe economic sanctions alone will work against a regime already under political pressure at home, is verified as moving toward nuclear arms capability, and is a sworn enemy of Israel and the U.S.?

Why would the U.S. allow the Middle East to swing toward Iran simply because our leaders waited too long to deal with Iran?

President Obama’s immediate choices are the same that President Reagan faced against the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran. The Iranians of the 1980s had no doubt President Reagan would have acted with strength.

The president must have the will to apply stronger sanctions on an immediate basis including stopping Iran’s oil shipments, restricting refined oil shipments to Iran (they have no refining capability), legally seizing assets, and further banking restrictions. Where necessary, the U.S. must act with Israel with the greatest speed to destroy Iran’s nuclear arms capability.

There is no deterrence against the will of our enemies if our own response lacks the will to act. Indecision is the unavoidable path of weak leadership.

American voters must demand that the candidates, including President Obama, stand strong against Islamic fundamentalists who would destroy our country. The voice of our leaders must once again echo the will of the people by supporting our allies, delivering tough sanctions, and following up with tougher military action. We must not back down in the face of threats to our security; our allies and our children depend on it.

Our national debt has now climbed to its highest level since World War II spending; however it was an economic boom that brought us out of the Great Depression.  Compare this to our situation now; we have the high spending, high debts, with no economic boom in sight.[1]  What is causing our national debt to rise?

In July 2011, President Obama and Congress agreed to authorize another increase in the debt ceiling.[2]  Congress sets this debt limit and determines how much money the federal government can borrow.

What exactly are these increases paying for?  Tax money and increases in debt are used to: secure our borders, fund bureaucracies including EPA and HUD, make payments through “entitlement” programs including social security, Medicare, and guaranteed student loans.  Additionally, massive new spending was approved to stimulate the economy; remember Solyndra and Beacon Power?

In May 2011, the debt ceiling was at $14.3 trillion.[3]  A “deal” was made by Washington power brokers to add over $2 trillion to the debt ceiling.[4]  Since May 2011, there have been three installments in the debt “deal.”  The most recent was approved in January 2012 for $1.2 trillion, bringing the debt ceiling to a whopping $16.4 trillion.[5]  This is an increase of over 22%!  Is this record increase in the federal debt essential for the good of the country, or is it Washington recklessness?

The “deal” was that any increase in debt had to be offset by paying only some of it down in the future over the next 10 years.

A special commission was assigned to find spending cuts that will lead to a reduction of about $1 trillion in future spending.[6]  Part of the “deal” was that if Congress did not enact a deficit reduction plan by December 2011, automatic cuts in defense spending (50%) and social programs (50%) would be made.[7]

The federal government ran out of money and needed more.

So what did they do?  They authorized more money.

Where does the money come from?  It is borrowed.

Who assures the debt will be paid?  The American people do, including our children, who will someday own this debt.

Who did the White House and the Congress hold accountable for finding the future spending cuts?  They appointed a special commission, not Congress.

So what was the result of the special commission? They did not reach an agreement on spending cuts.[8]  They did no better than Congress, who appointed them!

The deck is looking stacked in one direction: Government debt is now at an all-time high water mark, and the boat is leaking.  We are sinking in debt, and Washington politicians are not taking the steps needed to fix the problem.

Do the American people have a right to challenge Washington politicians for leaving us in such a dangerous place with more debt?  Without a doubt, we do, but this is more of the same pattern.  Washington politicians used income taxes and government debt to finance Social Security and other new social programs in the 1930s.  The federal debt grew 15 times larger from 1930 through 1950 to $257 million![9]  Washington politicians convinced the American people that because of the Depression, the government can take care of the “welfare” of the people – but they cannot.

In reality, the government also took things away from us as a nation that are instinctive in all of us individually: We know we have the right to buy, sell, trade, and hopefully, make a profit.  Most importantly, they were intruding onto the ability to live within our own means for our own safety and security.  Then, and only then, can we look after the needs of family and those close by.

Being in charge of the purse strings is a critical responsibility.  “Let the good times roll,” is a shameful lack of that responsibility.  I am beginning to believe the phrase started in Washington.

The American people reduced credit card debt by 19% between September 2008 (the worst of the recession) and April 2011.[10]  Americans are tightening their belts.  Are Washington progressives, bureaucrats, and politicians doing the same?  It is sad to think it is unlikely they will.  The federal government cannot continue to make promises, spend other people’s money, and refuse to take action to reduce the federal budget.

It is time to send a message to the Washington “out of control” spenders: Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way.  We can all play a role in rebuilding the economy and shortening the purse strings by limiting control of Washington.

Start by contacting your congressman to make sure they vote to wisely cut government spending and give our economy a chance.  Then find and support the candidates who will hold the line on reduced government spending and a significant reform of entitlements. Get the word to your friends and neighbors on the mortgaging of your financial future.

Let’s give the power – economic power – back to the people.

The last year has been filled with crisis and revolt in Egypt and across the Middle East.

In February 2011, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign[1] after 18 days of mass protests in Cairo, as all across Egypt it turned violent when police clashed with protesters.  The military took over control of the country, the parliament was disbanded and the constitution was abolished.[2] In November 2011, demonstrations broke out once again in Egypt just days ahead of general elections to replace military rule with a new civilian government.[3]

Should American citizens be concerned?  Do the events in the Middle East affect U.S. vital interests? Do recent actions of the White House and Congress show leadership?

Political instability in the Middle East is a major economic concern because of the impact on oil prices and oil supply.  Egypt controls the Suez Canal, which connects trade routes to the U.S. and Europe.  While Egypt controls slightly more than 2% of the world’s oil distribution, oil prices increased by 8 percent during the Egypt riots in January and February, on the threat that the oil supply through the Suez Canal might be interrupted.[4]

Then in November 2011, attackers blew up the natural gas pipeline from Egypt to Israel.[5]  Is a major disruption to the oil supply next?

The impact on global price and supply of oil would be significant if a major oil-producing nation in the Middle East experienced revolt and political disruption.

The U.S. has become more dependent on Middle East oil since President Obama halted oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and put a hold on the Keystone pipeline from Canada.  Americans must be aware of events in the Middle East to understand the negative impact on the fragile U.S. and global economy.  With large oil reserves in America, why hasn’t the White House delivered a practical plan for energy independence?

Protests – and demands for regime change – have erupted across many Islamic countries in the Middle East over the last year.  Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have all experienced regime changes.  Will the dominos of change continue to fall in other countries and increase oil prices for America?

What is the real impact to Israel – our major ally in the Middle East – if the violence and regime change continues?  Israel is bordered from the South and East by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.  Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.  Jordan[6] and Syria[7] have both experienced rioting in 2011.  What will happen to Israel if regime change is forced on Jordan and Syria like has occurred Egypt?

Iran has become an increasing threat to stability and safety in the Middle East.  The Iranian president has agreed with the “wisdom” of Ayatollah Khomeini that, “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map.”[8]  The watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran has the technical means to make a nuclear bomb.[9]

In the face of increasing rioting and regime change in the Middle East, along with threats from Iran, what firm action has the President taken to protect our allies and national interests?

On October 21, 2011, President Obama announced final troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. In the announcement the President stated that the U.S., “Will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces — again, just as we offer training and assistance to countries around the world.” [10]

In response, twelve U.S. Senators demanded hearings on the White House ending of negotiations on the continuing of U.S. training and counterterrorism in Iraq.  “As you know, the complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is likely to be viewed as a strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime.”[11]

The hearing on the Iraq withdrawal was held by the full Senate Armed Services Committee.  Where is the White House plan for training assistance to Iraq?

The complete removal of troops from Iraq is not an isolated act by President Obama.  On June 22, 2011, the president promised that troops stationed in Afghanistan will be partially reduced in 2011 followed by another reduction in 2012.  In 2014, President Obama plans a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.[12]

At a time when the threat from Iran in the Middle East is growing, the lack of leadership by the White House has taken away the counterbalance: U.S. troops.  By withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises to the Liberals and Progressives…and putting us at risk!

The current policies of the White House put our allies in greater danger at a time when our enemies are moving toward seizing power.  The lack of a clear plan for energy independence makes us more dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and weakens our borders both economically and politically.

Where is the White House plan to promote stability in the Middle East?

America must wake up and see that feeble action and weak leadership are a dangerous combination for our nation and the world.  We must elect leaders who will support our allies and not back down in the face of threats.  We must put our nation back on sure footing.

It is time to send a strong message to the White House and their supporters in Congress: Lead, Follow or Get Out Of The Way.

China is the new land of opportunity. Their economy has the fastest growth rate in the world and is projected to grow larger than the U.S. in a few years. American companies are building operations in China and expanding capacity in the U.S to bring more goods and services to the flourishing Chinese market.

Legend has it that our history with China started when Christopher Columbus found the American continent while he was looking for a new trade route to China. In many ways, we are still looking for new avenues for trade with China.

Since 1949, and the overthrow of the government by Mao Tse Tung, China has been a socialist country. The world watched in horror as the Red Army, China’s military force, brutally crushed the 1989 rebellion in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.

Who can forget the picture of the military tank, poised to run over the man who seemed to defy the will of the Chinese government?[1]

The safety and security of China has been challenged for centuries. The Chinese were attacked and overrun by other cultures, leading them to isolate from the outside world by building the Great Wall of China.

Sentiments between the American and Chinese people run deep. The Japanese seized Chinese territory during World War II, and cruelly imprisoned and killed Chinese citizens. It was not until the end of the war that the U.S. came to the aid of the Chinese.

During the Vietnam War, Americans fought in defense of South Vietnam while the Chinese fought with the North Vietnamese and propelled them to victory.

How much has isolationism in the Chinese culture, and challenges to their security, played a role in driving China to become a major power?

For over two decades, China has embraced their version of capitalism as a means to strengthen their economic and military power, and protect themselves from outside threats. China and the U.S. are major trading partners – and competitors – on the world stage.

With our challenging history together, will we treat China as friend or foe?

Will we be able to expand our markets with China while securing our borders?

China is moving rapidly to an industrial economy and away from their purely agriculture focus of the past. The transformation has been dramatic. For the first time, in 2011, the urban population of China is now larger than the rural population.[2]

China is the world’s largest exporter of goods,[3] and is second only to the U.S. in the amount of imports.[4] China is a critical trading partner, with combined exports and imports to the U.S. that are second only behind Canada.[5]

The top two exports from the U.S. to China are electrical machinery and power generation equipment, which represent nearly $23 billion in sales from American companies. In 2010, we had $91.9 billion in exports to China.[6]

The strategic importance of the relationship between China and the U.S. cannot be underestimated. Trade with China equals jobs in the U.S.!

China also holds $1.5 trillion of the U.S. debt.[7]  America is a debtor nation to China.  In August 2011, the credit agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. debt, causing China to react sharply.

The official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, said, “To cure its addiction to debts, the United States has to reestablish the common sense principle that one should live within its means.”[8] This sounds like a good thing to do.

“China, the largest creditor of the world’s sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China’s dollar assets,” Xinhua said.[9]

The addictive spending of our government has forced the Chinese government to “lecture” the White House and Congress to fix the problem. The addictive spending of Washington is a threat to the economic security of our strategic partner…and to the American people.

Is it any wonder that the Washington Power Brokers do not understand the threat that our spending and debt pose? The Chinese understand the importance of this threat.

The first principle of True Capitalism is that you do not hurt your trading partner.

True Capitalism is an economic system of trade in which all trading partners believe they receive equal or greater value in exchange for what they give up.

Washington’s delirious spending is hurting our key trading partner, the Chinese, and in doing so is hurting the American people. Less trade with China equals fewer jobs in America. The Chinese hold our debt, and they are becoming uneasy lenders. What if their nervousness drove them to call our loans, or stop buying our debt?

China understands something that the White House and bureaucrats do not: economic strength is might.

When will Washington learn the same?

Now is the time for action. The American people must know the simple truth that Washington’s “addictive spending” is killing our trading partners, and killing us too. We can deliver a clear message to Washington: restore economic freedom!

Get involved in the 2012 elections. Attend a caucus meeting in your state. Make up your mind to get the word out to your neighbors. Challenge the candidates on spending policies that destroy economic trade.

We see the headlines and watch Occupy Wall Street protesters in action.  They are organized and good at what they do – getting headlines and attention.  The demonstrations and occupation have ratcheted up the violence.  Their anger and frustration is real.  “We are the 99%, they are the 1%!”  “Stop the war on workers!”[1]

The Occupy Wall Street movement has expanded to more cities, triggering an emotional response by many people.  Their demands get headlines, but are the changes best for our country?

During the Great Depression of the 1930’s, there was massive hardship.  The unemployment rate was above 14 percent from 1931 to 1940.  Real domestic product shrank four years in a row as the economy worsened.[2]  The “Bonus Army” of unemployed soldiers marched to Washington.  Destitute people lived in shantytowns called “Hoovervilles”, named after President Hoover.  At its peak, there were over 20,000 people living in the largest Hooverville outside of Washington, DC.[3]  The pictures of desperate, unemployed people were a lasting memory.  There was real suffering, and a wave of sympathy swept across the nation.

Franklin Roosevelt won the presidential election of 1932 over Herbert Hoover.  There was a difference in style and substance between the two Presidents. Roosevelt was the first presidential candidate to appeal directly to the American people through the radio.[4]  He promised to use Federal Government programs to end high unemployment and make sure the depression never happened again.  Unfortunately, his promises did not come true.

What was behind the desperate times of the Great Depression?  Between Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt and the Federal Reserve, many interventions were put in place.[5]

One intervention by the Roosevelt administration was the creation of cartels.  A cartel is a group of companies that work together to set prices and production levels, and even divide territories and customers.  An example of a modern cartel is OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) made up of the largest oil-producing countries. OPEC controls oil production for its members to keep global oil prices high. It’s interesting that “private” cartels are subject to anti-trust laws.  “Public” cartels are not subject to anti-trust laws and are covered by government shields from liability.  “Public” cartels are one more example of the government Ruling Class looking after their influential friends!

The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 forced the creation of cartels in more than 500 industries.[6]  Businesses were told who they could trade with and at what price.  Their markets were set by law and regulation, which stifled competition.  It did not pay for companies to be innovative or efficient.

Is it any different today when cronies are rewarded and favored by the Washington power brokers (such as Goldman Sachs receiving bailouts),[7] while others are allowed to fail?  No wonder the Supreme Court struck down the law in 1935.[8]

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 was used to keep production low and force prices higher.[9]  Production that was deemed over the quota was destroyed or sold abroad at below cost (a practice called “dumping”).  Due to government rules, millions of acres of crops were plowed under.  Millions of pigs were slaughtered.  Fruit was left to rot. Production of perishables was controlled to boost prices starting in 1937.[10]

In an amazing turnabout, the Justice Department during the Roosevelt administration, hired hundreds of new attorneys in 1938 to aggressively prosecute businesses for anti-trust.  This followed President Roosevelt’s first term, when business was strong-armed to trade in cartels and keep prices high!  At the time the White House called business the “industrial dictatorship”.[11]  We are hearing much of the same progressive speech today from the White House, the Occupy Wall Street Movement and from the press.

Government-sponsored programs – such as the Works Progress Administration – were used to “create” millions of temporary jobs funded by government debt.  Approximately 8.5 million of these “make-work” jobs were handed out by bureaucrats through the WPA from 1935 to 1943.[12]

Do you think that the desperate residents of the Hoovervilles would have given up much for the opportunity to buy products where the prices are allowed to rise or fall based on demand?  Or for the opportunity to start companies to compete in a free market with the potential of reward for innovation and hard work?

Instead of being allowed to do what people instinctively know (to buy, sell, and trade) in a free market, they were given make-work jobs from federal government bureaucrats.

The strength of the Washington power brokers grew as they handed out jobs through government programs.  The reach of the Ruling Class grew into the power structure that we call “Washington Inc.” today.  They locked in the power structure that favors influential friends and hands out temporary jobs to the workers.

Washington Inc. = Influence + Power + Privilege

Washington Inc. is alive and well today.  The problem is that it has been in place so long that many people think it’s just business as usual in our government.  Government influence continues to hand out money and favors to a powerful few.

Did you know that President Obama’s cabinet has the least number of people with private-sector experience in over 100 years?[13]  These key assignments went to elites without real experience in running an enterprise, much less the country, with a sound economic plan.  The term “executive privilege” appears to have a new meaning.

Washington Inc. is alive and well in both political parties, unions, media, education, and big business! Government influence extends across political boundaries to benefit the few.  “Pork barrel spending” has been a multi-billion dollar source for Congress to grant favors, money and jobs.  Their aim is to gain votes and curry favor with unions and business that are picked as winners.  The “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska (famous due to high cost and a very small benefit) was cancelled in 2007 only after a public outcry.[14]

The situation today is that class distinction is important – the Ruling Class that is. Washington Inc. disguises itself as the friend of the common worker, provides favors for the privileged few, and plays class warfare against those who have benefited from the success of their hard work – all to maintain their influence and power.

We must restore a sound and prospering economy.  First, challenge the class warfare talk which hates hard work and achievement.  Then elect the candidates whose sound economic plans and practical experience will lead us away from Washington Inc.  We must stop the practices that are bringing our country to the economic brink of no return.  Let’s make a real difference by sending uncompromising candidates to Washington in the 2012 elections.

Do you remember when you heard the awful news about 9-11?  I do. I was listening to the radio on the way to work. I remember my emotions after seeing the news footage of planes burning on the sides of the Twin Towers in New York City.  My brother-in-law – who works in New York – watched in horror out of his office window as the Twin Towers came crashing down.  All of this was the work of terrorists.

The nation mourned and became enraged.

The terrorist acts on September 11, 2001 killed 2977 victims and caused incredible wreckage in the lives of families, friends, and co-workers.  The damage to the US economy was estimated to have cost American workers 1.6 million jobs by 2002.[1]

The events of 9-11 were a wake-up call for America.

We knew that we were at war because America was attacked on our own soil.

After 9-11, the US led the uncompromising attack against Iraq – one of the key countries to sponsor terrorism – and took down their dictator, Saddam Hussein.  The war was then expanded to Afghanistan.  Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden were the prime enemies.

By the end of 2011, the last of the US troops were withdrawn from Iraq by President Obama, keeping one of his campaign promises.  Then the timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was announced; followed by the death of Osama bin Laden.  We also solemnly commemorated the loss of life during the 10th anniversary of 9-11 at a new memorial on the site of the Twin Towers.

A decade has come and gone since 9-11.  Are we still at war?  Are we safe or safer today?

The 9-11 Commission Report concluded that, “In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”[2]

Iran continues to this day to threaten the Middle East and the US.

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran has received the necessary help from foreign sources and has mastered the critical steps to build a nuclear weapon.[3]

The sanctions in Iran, placed on them by the US and the United Nations, has further ratcheted up the tension.  In December 2011, Iran tested their long-range missiles[4] and conducted 10 days of naval exercises in the Straits of Hormuz – a key passageway for transporting 40 percent of the world’s oil sea-based shipments[5]. Iran has warned that they will blockade the Straits if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports.[6]

In November 1979, Iran seized 79 US hostages under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, while moving their people to riots by calling the US “the Great Satan”.

Despite negotiations, President Carter was not able to secure the release of the hostages.  The hostages were released just minutes after the start of President Reagan’s inaugural address in 1981.

Iran backed down instead of facing a strong response by a strong president.

Iran continues in the present time to be ruled by radical Islamic fundamentalists who believe that the US is “the Great Satan”.

There is a war still under way by the most radical Islamic fundamentalists against America.  The personal and economic freedom – which is provided by the constitution to each of our citizens – is an outrage to the most radical forces of Islam.

Thirty years have gone by since President Reagan forced Iran to back down and release the hostages.  We can continue down the path of Ronald Reagan by strengthening our military and financial muscles – and having strong leadership in place and the good sense of when to use them. We cannot afford the current administration’s impending military cuts if we plan to remain strong with an imminent Iran nuclear threat.

Americans must live by the words of President Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”[7]

Our leaders must not be afraid to stand strong against Iran by using the toughest sanctions – and even military presence – to stop Iran from becoming armed with nuclear weapons.[8]

Without oil refining capability existing in Iran, why have the White House and the UN held back by not placing sanctions against oil products being sold to Iran?  This action would cripple Iran.

The elections of 2012 are vitally important to our country. The threat of military spending cuts puts our nation’s security – and strength – in danger.

Make your voice heard.  Work in your state caucuses and primaries to ensure that we elect leaders who will strengthen our borders.

Each voting citizen must be armed with the understanding that our enemies hate us and want us to be destroyed.

Do not settle for leaders who demand that the US become isolated in the world.  Identify and work for candidates who will make the tough choices to use the economic and military might when needed to stop our enemies from developing nuclear arms.