Chuck DeVore

Time for fresh thinking on Korea

2010-11-24T18:09:31Z

North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (neither democratic, nor for the people, nor a republic), barraged an island belonging to South Korea, setting fire to more than 50 homes and killing two South Korean marines while injuring at least 16 others plus three civilians. South Korea fired back and launched some F-16 fighter bombers to the area, with the jets cautiously not crossing the demarcation line that separates the capitalist and democratic South from the totalitarian and armed-to-the-teeth North.

Based on the volume of destructive firepower, this is North Korea's biggest attack since the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War 57 years ago.

It's been nine years since I was last in South Korea. As with most Americans since 1950, my trip to Korea was in the uniform of the U.S. Army. I flew to Korea three times in 2001 to participate in military exercises as a brigade combat team operations officer (S3). During our first weeklong leaders' recon we visited South Korea's war museum in Seoul. Outside the museum stood two rows of flag poles topped by the unit insignias of the forces that fought to protect the South in the 1950-53 war. Leading one long row of flags was the banner of the 40th Infantry Division of the California Army National Guard, which fought in Korea in 1952 and 1953, losing 376 KIA with three soldiers of the division being awarded the Medal of Honor. Later, we traveled 50 miles east of Seoul to visit the Kapyong Comprehensive High School, otherwise known as the Kenneth Kaiser High School, named after the first 40th Division soldier to be killed in action in Korea. The 40th Division troops built the school for children orphaned by the war.

These visits served as a powerful visual reinforcement of the battle-forged ties between America and its ally South Korea - something I had only known in the abstract as an intelligence officer whose training had focused on the North Korean military since 1983.

The North Korean attack should be considered in light of four major factors in play in the region.

Kim Jong Un, the son of Kim Jong Il, the current North Korean dictator, (himself the son of Kim il-Sung, the man who started the Korean War in 1950, one of history's bloodiest bloodlines) will soon assume full control of North Korea's 22.8 million people. This attack, and the unprovoked North Korean sinking of a South Korean patrol boat last March that killed 46 sailors, may have as much to do with North Korea's unelected dynastic succession process as much as anything else. Given the opacity of the regime in Pyongyang, we'll never really know.

Less than two weeks ago, North Korea revealed an extensive and modern new uranium enrichment facility to a visiting American nuclear scientist. The facility's size increases concerns that North Korea is seeking to more rapidly expand their nuclear arsenal, now estimated by experts to number up to a dozen small nuclear weapons. In this light, some analysts believe that the North Korean attack serves as a deadly warning to America and to South Korea that any action against the North's nuclear capabilities would result in heavy retaliation to the South. The challenge for America is that anything short of dismantling the North Korean nuclear weapons program only serves as an encouragement to the Islamic Republic of Iran and other potential nuclear proliferators that they can build the Bomb with impunity.

Economics also plays a role in North Korea's seemingly brash actions. South Korea now has more than double North Korea's population at 48.6 million people, but, the South's economy is some 34 times larger than the North's. North Korea's communist system has been tottering on the verge of collapse for decades now. Its main source of hard currency earnings have been counterfeiting U.S. dollars (an act of war), weapons sales to regimes such as Iran, Syria and Myanmar (Burma), and drug running - hardly the foundation of a modern economy. But, seemingly every time North Korea indulges in violence and threats, it is mollified by South Korea and America who would rather appease the North with economic aid than see Seoul under a deadly bombardment. This ongoing dilemma proves the maxim that the power to destroy something is the power to own it.

Finally, the People's Republic of China has a pivotal role in the Korean situation. Were it not for the massive intervention of China's People's Liberation Army in 1950, North Korea would have ceased to exist and the entire Korean peninsula today would be united, free and prosperous (and likely nuclear-free). Today, North Korea's strange regime survives at the sufferance of its benefactors in Beijing. China could topple the North Korean government, if it wished to, by simply withdrawing the food and fuel that it ships to North Korea - that it doesn't speaks volumes about the Chinese communist leadership.

In response to the latest North Korean attack, the Chinese foreign ministry said North Korea and South Korea both needed to "do more to contribute to peace." This comment echoed China's comments of last March when a North Korean submarine sank the South Korean patrol ship showing that China has zero interest in restraining North Korea. China also called for all sides to return to the so-called "six-party talks" (the six parties being: North Korea, South Korea, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan), a forum whose sole result has been to reward North Korean aggression with economic payoffs.

American foreign policy on the Korean peninsula has been stuck since the 1990s when the Clinton Administration first made an issue of the North Korean nuclear program, then backed down, offering the North shipments of fuel oil and food in exchange for the North's nuclear cooperation. North Korea has been extracting concessions from the South and America ever since.

U.S. strategic flexibility on the Korean peninsula has been hampered by two things: the presence of some 30,000 U.S. military personnel in South Korea, a remnant of the Korean War some 60 years ago; and the deep concern of our ally, South Korea, that a firm response to the North's provocations would result in heavy damage and loss of life in Seoul. Our troops in South Korea were once needed to hold back North Korea, likely history's most militarized society since the Spartans. Today, however, the North simply doesn't have the economic muscle to field a modern, capable army. If it ever came to blows, the Republic of Korea's (ROK) army would crush the North's in days - but Seoul, a prosperous city of 10 million within artillery range of the North, would lie in ruins. Further, U.S. casualties could end up exceeding that of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined within a week. In short, confronting North Korea would be a bloody, ugly mess.

But continuing the status quo on the Korean peninsula isn't acceptable either. Every day that goes by with the North Korean regime intact is another day that allows them to sell nuclear technology and even nuclear weapons to nations such as Iran or to terrorists with cash. North Korea knows this, which is why they constantly extort South Korea and America, offering to curtail their nuclear program in exchange for assistance, only to later renege on their promises.

America could break this dismal cycle of extortion if it wanted to, but doing so would require more daring and ingenuity than is likely possible from the U.S. foreign policy establishment. The bold action: pull American troops out of South Korea. American military power is no longer needed in South Korea, at least not in the purely balance of power sense. In fact, the American military presence along the DMZ with North Korea only serves to constrain our initiative. Instead of doing what's best for U.S. national security, acting to dismantle the North Korean nuclear weapons program, we are hobbled by our alliance with the South into not doing anything that might provoke the North.

My oath of office as a U.S. Army officer doesn't mention anything about protecting Seoul from attack, but it does specifically say that I am to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." If defending Seoul prevents us from effectively "defend(ing) the Constitution of the United States against all enemies" perhaps it's time we rethink our increasingly obsolete troop commitment in Korea. Evacuating U.S. forces from South Korea would allow American foreign policy makers wider latitude in dealing with North Korea. For instance, the U.S. could issue an ultimatum to the North Korean regime to dismantle its clandestine nuclear weapons program or else face the consequences, which might include an attack on North Korean nuclear facilities, a naval blockade, or an attack on North Korean leadership. These actions would be entirely within the right of America to defend itself from a regime that continues to threaten U.S. national security. But, so long as America remains tied at the hip with South Korea, none of these more effective steps will be taken.

Lastly, our 15-year record of impotent and vacillating dealings with North Korea over their nuclear weapons program only serves to send a message to Iran, and other nations, that the U.S. will do nothing to interrupt their drive to nuclearize. There is far more at stake on the Korean peninsula than the fate of Seoul and the survival of the weird and brutal regime in Pyongyang.

This piece first appeared on Big Peace.

Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman. He is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve and served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon. He co-authored the novel China Attacks. He can be followed on Twitter @chuckdevore and his Facebook account is facebook.com/DeVoreForCalifornia.

Human rights, international affairs and more on Malaysia

2010-11-02T00:43:48Z

President Jimmy Carter made international human rights the centerpiece of his foreign policy. As a result, the United States distanced itself from autocratic regimes. The problem with this morally satisfying stance is that liberty isn't autocracy's sole enemy. Pres. Carter soon discovered this firsthand in Iran and Nicaragua, two nations that exchanged their autocrats (the Shah and President Somoza) for Islamic theocrats and Marxist totalitarians, respectively. To Carter's chagrin, his human rights push had no impact behind the Iron Curtain, where communist-ruled nations were immune to his efforts.

America's foreign policy motivations tend to swing between Nixon/Kissinger realpolitik, an amoral adherence to power politics, and a moralist foreign policy. Moralist foreign policy itself has been driven by different motivations over the years: manifest destiny, the Western obligation to civilize that led to American involvement in the Philippines, the Wilsonian progressive impulse (League of Nations), up to the recent presidency of George W. Bush (bringing democracy to the Middle East).

The challenge with a moralist foreign policy is that the world isn't simple. Nations have interests driven by economics, history, demographics or the ambitions of a ruler. So, while improving human rights is always laudable, the effort itself must be undertaken with care so as to not inadvertently make things worse (as in Iran in 1979).

]]> An example of how difficult this issue can be to finesse is Egypt. Egypt is arguably the Arab world's most important nation. Its 79 million people account for much of the region's doctors, teachers, and technocrats. Yet, from antiquity, Egypt has been run by autocratic rulers. The government, led by Hosni Mubarak since the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981, has complete control over what political parties may compete for election. The strongest opposition to the Egyptian regime is the Muslim Brotherhood (the Ikwan). They hold 88 seats in the 454 member People's Assembly, a number held artificially low by the government.

Advocates of pure democracy can't countenance Egypt's stunted political development, demanding free elections before Egypt can be considered anything other than a dictatorship. Yet, one need look no further than the Gaza Strip, a territory of 1.5 million people ruled by Egypt from 1948 to 1967, to see the danger inherent in such an approach. After the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority ran Gaza. Corrupt and autocratic, the Palestinian Authority began to lose confidence of the people it claimed to represent, leaving it politically vulnerable. Palestinian parliamentary elections were held in January, 2006, resulting in HAMAS (an Arabic acronym for Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, or "Islamic Resistance Movement") winning a plurality of 43 percent of the vote. Within a year, HAMAS, demanding more political power, began fighting with FATAH (the name itself being a reverse acronym for Harakat al-taḥrīr al-waṭanī al-filasṭīnī, or "Palestinian National Liberation Movement" with FATAH meaning "conquering" or "victory"). HAMAS prevailed after brutal fighting in Gaza. It has since set up a strict religious state under assistance from the Islamic Republic of Iran, its Hezbollah proxies, and other enemies of freedom and tolerance.

That HAMAS used democracy to strike a blow against democracy and liberty is now evident for anyone to see.

Applying the lesson of the Gaza Strip to Egypt, does anyone truly believe that the Muslim Brotherhood would be any better steward of human rights than the current Mubarak government?

Having lived in Egypt for half a year back in 1984-85, I saw firsthand the government's heavy hand. Government security agents were on virtually every corner. My writing was censored. Yet, the Muslim Brotherhood instigated deadly riots while I was there, even attacking the large Coptic Christian community in Cairo. Consider the fate of Egypt's eight million Christians if the Muslim Brotherhood gains power by ballot or bullet.

American policy towards Egypt is complicated by the facts on the ground. Egypt isn't free, but the Muslim Brotherhood alternative is worse. Beyond the Brotherhood's violent designs on the ten percent of Egyptians who profess Christianity, America also has to be concerned about what the Muslim Brotherhood might do with the most formidable army in the Arab world.

Many of the same considerations for American human rights policy in Egypt are present in Malaysia as well. Freedom House lists Egypt as ranking 6 of 7 in political rights (1 being free and 7 being totalitarian) and 5 of 7 in civil rights for an overall assessment of "Not Free." Malaysia is ranked at 4 in both categories (up from 5 in both in 2002), earning a "Partly Free" assessment from the human rights group. An important parallel consideration is that of corruption, which harms people's economic freedom. In this ranking, Transparency International pegs Egypt at 3.1 out of 10 (with 10 representing a perfectly open government) with Malaysia at 4.4 (less corrupt than its immediate neighbors, the Philippines to the north at 2.4 and Indonesia to the south at 2.8).

While Malaysia's economy has been growing and its political freedoms have improved incrementally in the past few years, especially once Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad retired from the post after 22 years in 2003, progress hasn't been fast enough to satisfy critics.

When I wrote on Oct. 26 that Secretary of State Clinton should steer clear of would-be Malaysian reformer Anwar Ibrahim, since he was neither "a government reformer" nor "a moderate Muslim," I was immediately attacked by Thor Halvorssen. Mr. Halvorssen accused me of not authoring my piece then he launched into an extended attack on the government in Kuala Lumpur. In our back-and-forth exchanges on Big Peace, Mr. Halvorssen cites "inaccurate information" and "errors" in my piece, but does not specify what I wrote that was false, saying, rather, that I left things out of the piece - to which I reply, of course, my piece was focused on Anwar Ibrahim, not on the government of Malaysia.

It should be noted that Mr. Halvorssen has done good work regarding human rights around the world. Especially noteworthy is his attempt to bring light to the abuses perpetuated by the People's Republic of China in their Laogai forced labor system. But, and here's the key point, Mr. Halvorssen is making the same error as President Jimmy Carter in thinking that all human rights abuses by all regimes can be dealt with in the same manner: by immediately applying more freedom and more democracy across the planet (as if we have such power).

As seen in Iran and Nicaragua in 1979 and in the Gaza Strip more recently, political change does not always advance the cause of human freedom.

I urged Secretary of State Clinton to avoid Anwar Ibrahim because he is not what he wants to appear to be to the naïve West. I find it highly instructive that when I cited the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith's admonition that Anwar Ibrahim was an "anti-Semitic demagogue unworthy of meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State," Mr. Halvorssen's response was to attack me and the Malaysian government.

Further, I cited as evidence of Mr. Ibrahim's unwelcome ties to the Muslim Brotherhood his co-founding of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). Mr. Ibrahim was a trustee of this Muslim Brotherhood front organization as recently as last year. Mr. Halvorssen's response to that information was to write the following, "I made no comment regarding the International Institute for Islamic Thought because I know nothing about its work or activities." The problem with this response is that Mr. Ibrahim's founding of the IIIT, and his continued association with it, are a basic part of my premise that Mr. Ibrahim is not a moderate Muslim worthy of support by the U.S. Secretary of State.

Mr. Halvorssen's willful ignorance of this point calls to mind another incident involving an Islamist with U.S. ties: the case of Sami al-Arian, the University of South Florida professor who pled guilty in 2006 to assisting the terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Back in 2001 and 2002, Thor Halvorssen, in his role as the executive director for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, defended al-Arian while attacking the University of South Florida for attempting to stifle al-Arian's academic freedom by firing him. It should be noted that al-Arian's Islamist sympathies were well-established some ten years before 9/11 when he said at Islamist rallies, "Jihad is our path. Victory to Islam. Death to Israel," and, "Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn them and their allies until death."

Of even greater interest is that federal prosecutors proved in 2003 that Ibrahim-founded IIIT provided financial support to Sami al-Arian. So, whether or not Mr. Halvorssen cares to know it, the case is clear: Anwar Ibrahim co-founded IIIT, a Muslim Brotherhood front group, who in turn provided financial assistance to convicted terror group supporter Sami al-Arian.

This provides important context to my criticism of Anwar Ibrahim and as well as my views on human rights in general vis-à-vis Mr. Halvorssen.

Mr. Halvorssen accuses me of inconsistency in thinking that things that are horrible in China are not so in Malaysia. Set aside for a moment that Freedom House lists the People's Republic of China as "Not Free" with a cellar political rights rating of 7 of 7 and a civil rights rating of 6 of 7, compared to Malaysia's middling 4 of 7 rating in both categories. Let's examine Mr. Halvorssen's basic premise: my inconsistency. Mr. Halvorssen wrote that "(DeVore) is under the mistaken assumption that I support Anwar Ibrahim's political party. I categorically support their right to participate in the political process and to be free from individual rights violations that are carried out against them and their party leader (violations that even DeVore reluctantly acknowledges). If Anwar Ibrahim or his party ever succeeded in becoming a government in Malaysia I would hold them to the same standard that I hold Najib. DeVore's lack of consistency only calls into question all of his previous criticisms of human rights violators." In addition, as an important aside regarding China, there is the issue of People's Liberation Army generals threatening Los Angeles with nuclear destruction, then being promoted by the communist government after saying so - I don't recall similar threats emanating out of Kuala Lumpur.

Herein, by the indictment of his own hand, Mr. Halvorssen indulges in the same sort of error that made Jimmy Carter's presidency the foreign policy disaster that it was: that somehow, people such as Thor Halvorssen and like-minded human rights NGOs, can have any meaningful impact on a nation after it is taken over by Islamist totalitarians.

Unfortunately, to bolster his own case of consistency vs. hypocrisy, Mr. Halvorssen had a chance to hold Mr. Ibrahim to account earlier this year when he was Jew-baiting, as well as last year, and the year before that. Alas, Halvorssen has been silent - likely because Ibrahim isn't yet able to implement his policies as the head of government.

No doubt, were Mr. Halvorssen able to offer a human rights critique of the Shah's Iran in 1979, he would have. Such critiques actually did influence some of the Shah's policies. But the historical fact is clear, as the Shah moved to mollify his critics in the West, President Carter foremost among them, his loosening of political restrictions led directly to his overthrow and the subsequent installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini's totalitarian theocracy - a regime that, by anyone's honest calculations, has been far, far worse for Iranians' human rights than the Shah's rule ever was.

So, am I inconsistent in my support of human rights around the world? Mr. Halvorssen accuses me so. I disagree in that I consistently view a nation in its own historical context while examining the political opposition and the kind of government it is likely to institute if it gains power.

In the case of the People's Republic of China, where Mr. Halvorssen and I agree, a loss of control by the Chinese Communist Party would likely result in more liberty for the Chinese people. In the case of Malaysia, I strike a note of caution, maintaining that, despite the ruling party's flaws, Anwar Ibrahim's coalition would likely turn back the clock on human liberty, while placing at risk the nation's substantial non-Muslim population.

Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman. He is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve and served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon. He co-authored the novel China Attacks. He can be followed on Twitter @chuckdevore and his Facebook account is facebook.com/DeVoreForCalifornia.

Human rights, international affairs and more on Malaysia

2010-11-02T00:36:41Z

That HAMAS used democracy to strike a blow against democracy and liberty is now evident for anyone to see.

Applying the lesson of the Gaza Strip to Egypt, does anyone truly believe that the Muslim Brotherhood would be any better steward of human rights than the current Mubarak government?

As seen in Iran and Nicaragua in 1979 and in the Gaza Strip more recently, political change does not always advance the cause of human freedom.

This provides important context to my criticism of Anwar Ibrahim and as well as my views on human rights in general vis-à-vis Mr. Halvorssen.

Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim is an Islamist and no friend of liberty

2010-10-26T16:10:09Z

Malaysia is on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's agenda this week as she swings through Asia. When she visits with Malaysian leaders, she might meet with Anwar Ibrahim, a supposed democracy and reform leader who, it is said, has been unfairly maligned by an overbearing government. Clinton shouldn't, as Malaysia is no Myanmar and Ibrahim is no Aung San Suu Kyi.

Once a British colony, Malaysia has been independent since 1957. It has transformed itself from a raw materials exporter to a nation with a strong economy boasting a per capita income of $14,900, roughly quadruple that of its larger neighbors: the Philippines and Indonesia. Malaysia's 26 million people are 60 percent Muslim, 19 percent Buddhist, 9 percent Christian and 7 percent Hindu. The legal system is based on English common law with Islamic law (Sharia) applying to Muslims in the matters of family law and religion. Islam in Malaysia, as in much of the Asian Pacific region, has been less prone to violence as it came to the region more as a function of peaceful trade rather than bloody conquest. Malaysia's economy has steadily improved, and, under Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, so too have press freedoms and application of rule of law. It has a distance yet to travel, but a victory by opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in next year's elections would not advance the cause of democracy.

]]> Serving as deputy to former long-time Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, Ibrahim helped steer Malaysia through the Asian financial crisis in 1997. But, when Ibrahim tried to leverage his success into the Prime Minister's office, Mahathir would have none of it, striking back with charges of corruption and sodomy. Ibrahim saw his political career sidetracked with his convictions on both charges (the sodomy charge was later reversed in 2004, but new sodomy charges were filed in 2008).

There's no denying that Anwar Ibrahim knows how to manipulate Western press and politicians. Ibrahim has fashioned himself a sympathetic profile in the West by leveraging the sodomy charges the nominally Muslim government has twice maladroitly leveled against him while claiming to be two things he isn't: a government reformer and a moderate Muslim.

Ibrahim's passion for government reform was suspect from the start. While riding the crest of his popularity in 1998, his allies called for a debate on "cronyism and nepotism" which Malaysia's former strongman Prime Minister Mahathir quickly turned on its head by producing lists of those who benefitted from by receiving shares from privatized government corporations. The lists showed Ibrahim, his allies, his brothers and his father owned million of shares in newly privatized companies. Ibrahim's corruption conviction was never overturned.

Selling Ibrahim as a moderate Muslim is altogether a different challenge. While Ibrahim enjoys the support of Al Gore and Paul Wolfowitz, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith calls him out as an anti-Semitic demagogue unworthy of meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State. Tellingly, when Ibrahim was recently in New York, shadowing a visit there by Prime Minister Najib Razak, he met with the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). Ibrahim was a co-founder of IIIT which listed the Malaysian politician as a trustee as recently as last year.

The problem is that IIIT is a Muslim Brotherhood front that has repeatedly been tied to terrorist network financing. In their 2001 book "Violence" IIIT called the state of Israel a "foreign usurper" that must be attacked with "fear, terror and lack of security." Only three years ago, Malaysian Muslim feminist Zainah Anwar called out IIIT for suppressing moderate Koranic teachings. Of direct concern to Americans should be that the Muslim Brotherhood's new "Supreme Guide" or leader, Muhammad Badi, called for violent jihad against both the U.S. and Israel in a September 30 sermon, saying it was a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Ibrahim met with IIIT leaders in New York only days after this sermon.

Anwar Ibrahim is simply one in a long line of Islamist leaders who know how to say one thing to a Western audience who longs to hear soothing words, while saying and acting differently when they think no one from the West is paying attention. If Ibrahim's People's Justice Party (run by his wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail) comes to power in 2011, it will likely mark another occurrence of democracy being used to destroy democracy. Secretary of State Clinton, if she meets with Ibrahim, will act to boost his destructive charade.

Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman. He is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve and served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon. He co-authored the novel China Attacks. He can be followed on Twitter @chuckdevore and his Facebook account is facebook.com/DeVoreForCalifornia.

My Chemical Romance debutes "Na Na Na" music video tonight on MTV - a lighthearted look at dystopia

2010-10-15T02:06:53Z

Of the many advantages of having children, a key one is that one's tastes in music don't become ossified (the negative corollary being: you know all about Justin Bieber).

For this reason, our home has openly wondered when My Chemical Romance would create their fourth studio album. After turning out one collection after another: 2002's "I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love," 2004's "Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge" and 2006's "The Black Parade," My Chem, or MCR for short, took a break that saw band members marry and start families.

Well, the four year wait is almost over, with MCR scheduled to release "Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys" on November 22, 2010. The first music video from the new album premiers on MTV today at 11 PM Eastern featuring the song, "Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na)." The "Na Na Na" music video can be seen online. ]]> As with much of MCR's work, "Na Na Na" sports some profanity, but, the band is from New Jersey, across the Hudson from New York City - it's how they communicate there.

"Na Na Na" closes with a thought infrequently heard in the often self-centric music world:

"What will save us?"
And the sky opened up
Everybody wants to change the world
Everybody wants to change the world
But no one
No one
Wants to die
Wanna try?
Wanna try?
Wanna try?
Wanna try?
Wanna try?
Now!
I'll be your detonator!

"Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys" pre-release run up made masterful use of social media, with cryptic tweets hinting at a dystopian, zombie-infested, post-apocalyptic desert base populated by a motley crew of survivors named "Agent Cherri Cola," "Dr. Death Defying," "Party Poison," "Tommy Chow Mein," and "DJ Hot Chimp," operating a desert transmitter codenamed "NewsAGoGo."

A hint of the concept album's dystopian roots might be found in an August 28, 2008 blog post from Gerard Way:

"Gerard here... I'm hanging out with Mikey in New Jersey, relaxing, drinking
coffee, talking comics, and getting ready to take a drive down south tomorrow. I don't know what states I'm passing through but I know where I'm heading. Don't worry, I've got a the Clockwork Orange audiobook, a Dr. Pepper air-freshener, and a GPS so I don't get lost."

Thematic elements from "The Clockwork Orange," Anthony Burgess' 1963 vision of the future gone horribly wrong, can be readily seen in the "Na Na Na" music video. This vein of nihilistic ore has been mined plenty of times in the rock world, but My Chemical Romance has always been more than they seem to the casual observer. So, while this music video appeared to be darkly dystopian, a lighter note was clear as well: sort of like The Monkees meets the zombie apocalypse. Should the rest of "Danger Days" follow suit, rather than burrowing deep to a dark place and wallowing there, the album will likely offer more texture, perspective and hope than the usual post-Obama-meltdown-world-gone-mad genre album.

My Chemical Romance fans know that lead vocalist Gerard Way is also a talented comic book creator of the Eisner Award-winning "The Umbrella Academy." Thus, it's not a stretch to understand why Grant Morrison co-stars in "Na Na Na." Morrison, a comic book author who routinely redefines his field (superhero revisionism is the tamest thing he's done in the past 20 years) is also a musician in his own right. There's even what could be a nod to Morrison in "Na Na Na":

"Remember when you were a mad man,
Thought you was bat man."

Morrison made a living for a number of years writing for the "Batman" franchise and his on screen role is a parodic archetype - a sort of "draculoid" zombie king evil foil to My Chemical Romance's good. Morrison's foul intent isn't yet clear in "Na Na Na," but we suspect he's after some form of totalitarian domination, probably through national health care, given the medically suspect condition of his blood-thirsty lieutenants.

My Chemical Romance rose out of the ashes of 9/11 when Gerard Way, then 24 and working as a comic book store clerk in New York City, was shaken to his core. Way wrote the lyrics to the song "Skylines and Turnstiles" to work out the personal impact the terror attacks had on him. Not like Way had it easy before 9/11 - at 15, he was held at gunpoint, causing him to remark later, "No matter how ugly the world gets or how stupid it shows me it is, I always have faith." He would need that faith as he struggled with substance abuse and suicidal thoughts (one of the motivating factors in creating My Chemical Romance is said to have been the other band members concern for Gerard Way). Way has been sober since 2004 and the band often contributes money to suicide prevention non-profits such as The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

Given My Chemical Romance's enormous talent (they're often favorably compared to Queen), "Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys" should contain several excellent songs, some of which will certainly blaze new ground, and, like the Black Parade concept album, receive wide critical acclaim.

I've always cheered for the boys from New Jersey and wished them the best. They have profound talent combined with a creative genius rarely seen in the commercial world. But most importantly the band has a soul untarnished by the cynicism that can consume many in the music industry.

Debt, China and End of the World as We Know It

2010-09-14T16:51:41Z

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Marcus Tullius Cicero - 44 B.C.

I'm normally not given to pessimism about America--we are a strong people in a rich land--but our political class has set the foundation for disaster.

The Federal debt stands at $13.4 trillion with another $110 trillion in unfunded Medicare and Social Security liabilities.

The People's Republic of China now holds about $850 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds, most of it quietly moved over the past few months into notes maturing in less than a year.

The ability of a nation to borrow and to finance its debt and other obligations, such a maintaining its defenses or fighting a war, is as much based on trust--the expectation that one will be paid back--as it is based on economic prowess.

What might the end of history's greatest democratic republic look like?

At some point in the near future, a rapidly rising China may decide to challenge American supremacy in the Pacific. The flashpoint may be over Taiwan, or it may be over the reputedly vast oil and gas riches in the disputed South China Sea area--what matters is not the trigger, but the result.

Within minutes of a Sino-American confrontation, world markets believe that China will begin selling their almost one-trillion dollars in U.S. treasury bonds. This starts a global sell-off that ripples through the entire American bond market as fears about inflation feed on investors.

Within days, concerned Americas begin to withdraw their bank deposits, money market funds and other liquid assets, such as life insurance policies, using the money to buy precious metals, durable goods and even real estate.

Within a week, the Federal Reserve would be forced to create trillions of dollars of fiat money to cover its obligations. This, in itself, would be highly inflationary, but, with confidence in the financial markets already shaken by the events of 2008-09, mass panic may lead to hyperinflation, a phenomenon of a different kind.

Within a month of the start of hyperinflation, the U.S. government's credibility is shot, the dollar is worthless, and, most importantly for national security purposes, the U.S. cannot even secure fuel for its military--essentially shutting down what was the world's most powerful military without a shot being fired.

Beginning to pay down our massive Federal debt will take both political discipline and a patient public. This will be difficult, but not impossible. The alternative is almost unthinkable.

Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman. He is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve and served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon. He co-authored the novel China Attacks. He can be followed on Twitter @chuckdevore and his Facebook account is facebook.com/DeVoreForCalifornia.

Does High State Debt Make for Obama Voters?

2010-08-17T16:11:47Z

CNN, together with Moody's Investor Services, published a map of the U.S. showing per capita state debt.

This debt map brought to mind another map, this one the Electoral College map from the 2008 election. President Obama won 28 states and the District of Columbia totaling 365 Electoral College votes, to McCain's 22 states totaling 173 Electoral College votes.

Moody's Per Capita State Debt Map and the 2008 Electoral College Map show a strong correlation

Now, compare the high-debt states to the states shown in blue that voted for Obama--the linkage between debt and voting behavior is visually clear.

According to Moody's, the average state per capita debt of the 28 Obama states is $1,728 while the average debt in the 22 McCain states is less than half, at $749. This information alone says a lot about voters and their attitude towards government and debt. Voters with a propensity to elect politicians who burden future generations who can't yet vote with huge debts voted for Obama while fiscally responsible voters generally voted for McCain.

McCain States	Per Capita State Debt
Kentucky	$1,685
Mississippi	$1,478
Alaska	$1,345
Louisiana	$1,271
Kansas	$1,140
Georgia	$1,120
West Virginia	$1,079
Utah	$957
South Carolina	$917
Alabama	$796
Missouri	$780
Arizona	$736
Oklahoma	$570
Idaho	$532
Texas	$520
Montana	$358
North Dakota	$327
Tennessee	$318
Arkansas	$312
South Dakota	$135
Wyoming	$77
Nebraska	$15
Average Per Capita State Debt	$749

Obama States	Per Capita State Debt
Connecticut	$4,859
Massachusetts	$4,606
Hawaii	$3,996
New Jersey	$3,669
New York	$3,135
Delaware	$2,489
California	$2,362
Washington	$2,226
Rhode Island	$2,127
Oregon	$1,859
Illinois	$1,856
Wisconsin	$1,720
Maryland	$1,608
New Mexico	$1,398
Florida	$1,123
Minnesota	$1,037
Pennsylvania	$938
Ohio	$933
Nevada	$925
Virginia	$895
North Carolina	$765
Maine	$760
Michigan	$748
Vermont	$709
New Hampshire	$665
Indiana	$493
Colorado	$400
Iowa	$73
Average Per Capita State Debt	$1,728

This trend gets starker when you look at the debt in the states that voted overwhelmingly for one candidate. The six states where Obama received the highest percentage of the vote were: Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maryland. McCain received his highest percentage of votes in Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Alabama and Alaska. The strongest Obama states had a per capita debt high of $4,606 for Massachusetts and a low of $709 for Vermont--remember, the average per capita debt in the McCain states was only $749, barely above the debt level in Vermont, with its "less is more" ethic. Per capita debt in the strong McCain states ranged from a high of $1,345 in oil-rich Alaska to a low of $77 in coal-rich Wyoming. The average per capita debt state debt in the strong Obama states: $2,697, almost $1,000 greater than the average debt in the 28 states he won. McCain's six strongest states tell the opposite tale with a per capita state debt of $713, a little more than a quarter of the debt load racked up in the states that most enthusiastically went for Obama.

Looking at the states with the narrowest margin of victory or loss for either candidate more than confirms the trend. The five states with the narrowest margin of victory for Obama were: North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, with a per capita average state debt load of $842, only a third of the debt average for the strong Obama states and barely above the winning McCain state average of $749. Meanwhile, the five weakest McCain states, Missouri, Montana, Georgia, South Dakota, and Arizona (!) registered an average per capita state debt of: $626, not much more frugal than the five states Obama barely carried.

Another thing comes to stark light with this study in mind: it makes absolute Chicago-style reward your friends and punish your enemies political sense that President Obama and his Democratic allies would use Federal dollars, our dollars, to bail-out profligate spending, pro-Obama states such as New York and California at the expense of frugal red states such as Wyoming and Oklahoma. The Stimulus and its proposed follow-ons are as much about this as they are about the jobs that weren't really created.

This study is useful, if depressing, as America comes to grips with the alarmingly higher federal debt levels being incurred by President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress. Useful, because it shows the linkage between voters accustomed to getting something for nothing by sending their bill for their high-spending ways to their children and grandchildren. The study's depressing side: generationally selfish voters won't easily change their voting habits.

Here's how to beat Harry Reid

2010-08-17T16:05:09Z

As you know, these are dire times. Under the leadership of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, government spending is hurtling our country towards a financial collapse.

This November, every American needs Sharron Angle to win in Nevada. To win, Sharron needs to raise a tremendous amount of money.

Please stand with Sharron and me today and contribute to her campaign. Take two minutes today to donate $25, $50, $75, or $100 using our secure servers.

Her victory is so important, that I personally contributed to her campaign and helped her fundraise for this race.

Not only will Sharron's victory end the Obama-Pelosi-Reid chokehold on this great country, but we will also have a new conservative voice in the Senate.

Polls show that Sharron is neck-and-neck with Harry Reid. The Democrats and special interests know that this race is close, and they're willing to pour money into Nevada.

They're willing to win this race at any costs to keep their power over America. Harry Reid's friends and allies have already spent more than $15 million dollars attacking Sharron. They've assailed her on television, radio and the Internet since right after she won the primary.

Sharron represents the voices of folks like you and me in America. She doesn't have the deep pockets of Wall Street and Big Pharmaceutical companies like Harry Reid does.

She needs conservatives around this country to donate to her campaign and help pave the road to a Republican victory this November.

Click here to donate $25, $50, $75, or $100 to Sharron's campaign today.

We're working hard to defeat Barbara Boxer here in California, but we can send an even stronger message by defeating the Harry Reid - the Senate Majority Leader.

Please join me today in donating to Sharron Angle.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore

Radio Show

2010-07-15T04:26:01Z

I'll have a 3-hour radio show on KFI this Sunday, July 18 from 7 to 10 PM. I'm making it a Comic-ConInternational-themed program since that huge Comic book/Sci-Fi/video games convention occurs the following week in San Diego.

Over the next day I'll be writing about the show and the great guests we have lined up from Hollywood and the world of comic books and video games. We'll talk about what they do for a living and explore the connections between their work and the wider culture.

First up on the show we'll have Chuck star Adam Baldwin. Adam plays Major John Casey, a National Security Agency agent assigned to protect Chuck. Adam also starred in the film Serenity and the critically-acclaimed series Firefly. When he's not in front of the camera, Adam can be found helping our wounded veterans with the Ride 2 Recovery. He also writes for Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

Chuck DeVore

Iran, nuclear weapons and execution by stoning: the danger of international affairs relativism

2010-07-09T03:29:50Z

As the world continues to do little more than wring its hands over the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear ambitions, what passes for a government in Tehran is preparing to stone to death a mother of two for the crime of adultery (breaking news update, the Iranian regime may not stone the accused to death, but rather, execute her using a different method due to growing international outrage). Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, 43, was convicted in 2006 and has already been punished with a flogging of 99 lashes (such a punishment can, in and of itself, be life-threatening).

I wrote about this barbaric Iranian practice last year when I reviewed Cyrus Nowrasteh's hauntingly chilling and award-winning film "The Stoning of Soraya M." on Big Hollywood. If you haven't seen it you should.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is notorious for other reasons too. In 2007, an Iranian member of parliament, Moshen Yahyavi, admitted that Iran applies the death penalty for homosexual acts (joining such other stalwart member states of the UN such as Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Nigeria).

Iranian president Ahmadinejad infamously said in 2007 that there were no gays in his country after he was asked by students in New York about the hangings of two teenagers "convicted" of homosexuality.

All this matters because a nation's dealings with its own people serve to as a window on how that nation views the rest of humanity. Thus, when President Ahmadinejad says the Holocaust never happened and darkly says that Israel is "doomed" we must view his remarks in the context of his being the leader of a nation that stones women (never men) for adultery while hanging homosexuals.

Nations, as with people, cannot be perfect. Nations, also as with people, can be bent towards good or evil. The Islamic Republic of Iran is an evil regime. Iran's leaders are determined to acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal and, unlike other nuclear-armed regimes led by men of ill-intent, the leadership of Iran claims to believe in martyrdom as a way to usher in the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and with this 12^th Imam, a Millennial Age. Such motivations cannot be deterred in the conventional Cold War sense as America's nuclear arsenal deterred the old Soviet Union (officially atheist Communist leaders aren't big on personal martyrdom).

As the Islamic Republic of Iran's uranium centrifuges spin towards nuclear midnight, think about the nature of regime that seeks to acquire the tools of atomic destruction.

Prisoners of Faith

2010-07-08T19:45:26Z

On February 22, 1983, I raised my right hand in the Los Angeles MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) and said, "I, Charles Stuart DeVore, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; That I will bear true faith And allegiance to the same..." With those words, I became United States Army Private First Class DeVore, joining the millions of others since 1789 who swore with their lives to "support and defend the Constitution."

Unlike many veterans, I have been fortunate not to see combat. I was "officially" shot at only once; during the Los Angeles riots in 1992 (well, there was that time in Lebanon, but that wasn't official; and I was carjacked in 1988 by Panamanian paramilitaries).

When the members of the armed forces of the United States of America fight, they do so not just for their colleagues in uniform next to them - virtually every soldier in history has done that - they do so not for king or country - they fight to preserve a document, the Constitution. In that, the United States Armed forces have become the greatest force for good, for freedom, that the world has ever seen because the Constitution exists to make a reality out of the promise of the Declaration of Independence to secure our "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

As a lawmaker and a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army retired Reserve, I have sworn two oaths to "support and defend the Constitution." It's an obligation I take seriously. It's one of the reasons why I do what I can with the power of my office to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" when people ask for my assistance.

This last summer, I was approached by family members of four women wrongly imprisoned in the Peoples Republic of China for their religious beliefs. These family members, all U.S. citizens or resident aliens, went to their U.S. and state representatives, including Senator Barbara Boxer's office, asking for help. They were turned away. No one would assist them by using the moral power of their office to move the Chinese authorities. By the time they came to my office in desperation, they were in tears. At least one woman, Jinhua Ma, the mother of a California resident, had been held for a year without charges in a "Laogai" - a Chinese forced "Reeducation Through Labor" camp.

I agreed to lend the services of my office to help these California families. We sent letters to the Chinese Ambassador, the Consul General, the Mayor and Police Chief of Shanghai, and others. I wrote about the case (and was roundly criticized by some for "wasting" my time when there were more important things to worry about in California).

A few weeks after we sent the letters, we found out that the Chinese legal system had filed formal charges against the four. The sleep deprivation tactics ceased and treatment improved. Then, in September, came welcome news, Jinhua Ma, unjustly-held for a year in hard labor, was released. I was moved to tears at the thought of relief that must have swept over Jinhua Ma's family.

Last night I spoke to the UC San Diego College Republicans. It was my 201st campaign event since declaring for office. Unknown to me, a young San Diego woman by the name of Joanna Wang was in the audience. Near the end of my talk, she rose to read a statement. She thanked me for getting her mother out of prison in China. It was a powerful moment as I struggled to keep my composure. Joanna Wang's mother is Jinhua Ma and Jinhua Ma now breathes free air.

This is why I serve.

Video

2010-07-08T19:41:51Z

Today, my campaign released a special video where I describe what motivates me to run for the U.S. Senate. The challenging times we live in demand that we elect representatives who will restore fiscal responsibility and Constitutional governance to Washington.

Please take a minute and share this video with your friends and family:

As we watch our precious freedoms slip away through massive runaway spending and government takeovers of entire industries I can't help but think you are the one being short-changed in these times.

You can make the difference. Thank you again for your support.

Thanksgiving Day Note

2010-07-08T19:20:52Z

I'm writing you this note from Arizona, where Diane, our daughters and I are visiting my Mom for Thanksgiving.

The primary thing to be thankful for at every Thanksgiving is the same thing the Pilgrims were thankful for at the very first Thanksgiving: the grace of God, and His bounty in this blessed America.

On this, the day after Thanksgiving, I want to tell you that I'm thankful for one more thing -- you, your concern for California, and your love for our country. This holiday is not a time for politics: but it is a time for gratitude. I hope you'll accept mine.

Sincerely,
Chuck DeVore

President Obama`s State of the Union Address: Confusion and Indignation

2010-07-08T19:18:20Z

The President's first State of the Union Address was an appropriate reflection of his first year in office: rhetorically ambitious, pragmatically muddled, ideologically dangerous, and surprisingly naïve for a product of the Chicago political machine. But as with F. Scott Fitzgerald's Amory Blaine, for whom "It was always the becoming he dreamed of, never the being," so too did Barack Obama focus more upon ascending to high office than on using it well. The President is now stuck upon his pinnacle. To borrow a metaphor from the Owens Valley where I spent my high school years, he's a turtle on a post: you aren't sure how he got there, and he's not sure what he'll do about it.

Before listing the many negatives of the President's speech, allow me to visit the one positive, when the President said of energy, "That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development..." As someone who has authored five bills on modern nuclear power in the past four years as well as a major piece of offshore oil legislation (the latter actually passed the State Senate) while working on a comprehensive offshore oil and gas bill that I'll soon introduce, I was delighted to hear these words from the President. His recent record on these matters, however, brings doubt that word will translate into deed.

As for the rest of the speech? The President's confusion, leavened with indignation at the forces that confound him, was on full display as the evening ground on.

Why? Turn the clock back one year, to January 2009. That month saw the ascent to office of perhaps the most ideologically left-wing Federal legislature and executive in our nation's history. President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi began the year intent upon a fundamental reordering of American life via politics. A dramatic expansion of government, from industry seizures to an extravagant "stimulus" to a takeover of healthcare, was the order of the day. The liberals were energized and empowered. Decades of pent-up plans were to be unleashed upon America.

From a political perspective, it's impossible to gainsay their confident ambition, even in retrospect. The Republican Party was laid low in three years of self-inflicted disaster from 2005 through 2008, as the American people woke up to the baleful reality that it had ossified in power, and strayed far from its conservative roots. By the 2008 election, Republicans in Washington, D.C., had managed to tarnish the party's once-sterling reputation for fiscal rectitude, national-security competence, and sound governance. The American people duly punished them at the polls that fall.

In that light, it's no surprise that Democrats and liberals thought they had a mandate for their own agenda. It's no further surprise that they thought Republicans and conservatives wouldn't be a threat for a long while. But we are, and there's two reasons for it. One reason is that conservatives have risen up across the country, and are dragging Republicans back to first principles -- whether they like it or not.

The other reason is that the Obama-led liberals have spent the past year taking every error of the George W. Bush era -- and doubling down on them.

The President's State of the Union Address was a sad litany of those errors. Among them:

The President refuses to face up to the national debt. This showed through again and again. He described a series of small tax cuts, but no spending cuts whatsoever. He rightly noted the massive increases in debt and spending under his predecessor -- "All this was before I walked in the door" -- but omitted his own responsibility for running up both, in a single year, by orders of magnitude more than recent profligate Congresses and their enabler George W. Bush ever did. His much-touted 2011-2014 spending freeze, a topic of much anguish on the left, would in fact affect a risibly tiny percentage of federal expenditures. Here, as in so many things, Barack Obama is deeply unserious.
The President does not understand economics, part one. About 160 years ago, Frédéric Bastiat wrote of the broken-window parable, to explain how governmental appropriation and redistribution is not the same as economic growth and wealth creation. It's among the most basic economic lessons, and it's one Barack Obama -- and most Democrats -- would do well to learn. Time and again the President spoke of new jobs, transient and ephemeral though they are, created by the ruinous stimulus -- the money for which came from your pocket and prodigious borrowing.
The President does not understand economics, part two. One of the first clues that the George W. Bush Administration was not conservative in economic affairs was the politically motivated imposition of the 2002 steel tariffs. The idea that trade and its electoral benefits can be manipulated to win votes ends is not new, but there is ample evidence that the net economic effect is nearly always bad. It's in that light that the President's announcement of a "National Export Initiative" to "double our exports over the next five years" has an ominous ring. A doubling of American exports by 2015 would be an epochal change in world trade patterns and would be unlikely in the best of circumstances. Rather, the President should aim for long term growth by reducing taxes and the regulatory burden imposed by a massive and growing Federal Register while seeking to dismantle foreign trade barriers that function as tariffs in all but name.
The President does not understand economics, part three -- and he's indulging in cheap populism. The housing crisis and mortgage bubble that did so much to drag our national economy down in the past few years was encouraged by a web of regulations, mandates, and policies that drove lenders to bad risks. As those bad risks accumulated, the short-term rising market suppressed lenders' remaining resistance to taking on still more. The result is the mess we have today -- including a locked-up credit market. The President's twofold response is as baffling as it is dangerous. First, he declared that taxpayers will "recoup" the money spent in resultant bailouts, by a special tax if needed. Rest assured you and I will not see a dime. Second, he announced that he will dedicate $30 billion "to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat." Punitive taxation of financial institutions and encouraging their return to the lending practices that spurred the crash: it's like dousing a fire with gasoline.
The President's foreign policy is incoherent. Say what you will about the foreign policy of the previous Administration -- this one is apparently bent upon making George W. Bush seem in retrospect the union of Metternich and Kissinger. Colombians, Panamanians, and South Koreans were doubtless surprised to hear the President endorse expanded trade with their nations, this, after he and his fellow Democrats spent the past several years sinking their respective free-trade agreements with the United States. Iranian students demanding to know why Obama has been virtually silent for months on their freedom struggle will be surprised to learn that his Administration "support[s] the human rights of the woman marching in the streets of Iran." The Iranian mullahs were probably relieved at the gratifying non-specific nature of the consequences for their nuclear program. And the Taliban were doubtless heartened to hear the President reaffirm America's planned disengagement from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011.

A full accounting of the bad ideas, errors, and demagoguery in the President's State of the Union Address would include all this, and more. President Obama doesn't restrict himself to the appropriation and magnification of his predecessor's mistakes: he has his own sui generis offerings. Again from his speech:

A bizarre and troubling stated envy of the political efficiency of countries like Germany, India, and yes, Communist China.
A direct and fallacious attack on the Supreme Court of the United States, over theCitizens United decision -- which will likely benefit Democrats more than Republicans for the foreseeable future due to the fact that unions overwhelmingly support Democrats while big business generally supports those in power.
A hypocritical attack on lobbyists, a class no one loves, but also one protected by the First Amendment -- and one from which Barack Obama drew his Attorney General, his Secretary of Agriculture, his Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, his Domestic Policy Council Director, and too many other various czars and senior Administration officials.
An inaccurate declaration that "you can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy," when the results are in government-dependent jobs, not technological progress or lasting economic growth.
A pedestrian proclamation that he will now schedule regular meetings with legislative leaders.
A reinforcement of failure in the rhetorical commitment to pass an Obamacare bill that is almost certainly dead after the election of Scott Brown.
A condemnation of the years of his predecessor, which he sees as the font of America's problems, but which Americans are increasingly remembering as "the good old days."

This, then, was Barack Obama's first State of the Union Address. It wasn't about our Union so much as it was about him, his Presidency, and why it's floundering. President Obama wants the American people to know that things aren't his fault: George W. Bush and the power of cynicism thwart his vision. Maybe Democrats believe that. Maybe Barack Obama believes it. There are no lies so powerful as the ones we tell ourselves.

But come November 2010, Democrats and the President both will find that the American people don't believe it at all.

Health Care Reform: A Tremendous Blow

2010-03-24T18:01:00Z

"The passage of this phony healthcare 'reform' is a tremendous blow to the cause of fiscal restraint, limited government, Constitutional principles, and free enterprise. In short, it strikes directly at America's core principles. This is shameful moment in the history of our country -- and especially the Democratic Party, which has apparently come unmoored from whatever remaining attachment it had to the ideals of our Founders. In place of a dedication to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' there is only a rapacious impulse to ever-expanded state control, and an avaricious imperative to seize ever-more of your rightful possessions.

"The Democrats are beyond reason. They are beyond appeals to common sense and patriotism. The corrupt milieu that produced President Barack Obama has metastasized and seated itself in Washington, D.C. -- and we saw it on full display in the razor-thin passage of this healthcare 'reform.' Every trick, every pressure, every shameless deal was done. Down to perverting the rules of the American Congress, the Democrats stopped at nothing.

"Perhaps most pathetic was the spectacle of Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak, who exchanged his pro-life principles for a hollow promise from the most pro-abortion President in American history. That executive order won't stand up to judicial scrutiny -- the President cannot override the law by fiat -- and pro-life organizations like National Right to Life and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops understand that it's a worthless scrap of paper. Yet Rep. Stupak's desperation for thin cover to do the wrong thing is useful in one way: it illustrates the union of moral vacuum and maneuvering deception at the core of the Democratic effort for Obamacare.

"That's why the American people will throw them out of office this November.

"When Americans vote this fall, they'll vote for candidates who stood strong against Obamacare from the start -- and who will overturn it once in office. In California, I am the only U.S. Senate candidate of either party who fits that bill. I've been speaking out against the government takeover of American healthcare since the President first mentioned it. There are so many simple steps we could take to make healthcare more affordable, more accessible, and more efficient -- without expanding the reach and control of the federal government. They include, but are not limited to:

   "-- Allowing interstate competition between health care plans.
   "-- Revising the tax code to reward and encourage purchases of coverage and healthcare saving.
   "-- Curtailing junk lawsuits that drive up healthcare costs -- and not coincidentally, line the pockets of Democratic contributors.
   "-- Attack fraud in medical billing.
   "-- Encourage a restructuring of American health insurance toward an individual-policy market rather than an employer-mandate system.

"Obamacare accomplishes none of these goals. One of my first priorities in the United States Senate will be to repeal it and start over. The American people are profoundly unsettled by today's vote, and they deserve no less.

"The movement to turn back the Democrats' takeover of American healthcare has already begun: but it will only happen if Republicans select the right candidates for the job. In the U.S Senate race in California, I am that candidate. I'm the only one who signed the Club for Growth's 'Repeal It' pledge (repealit.org/pledge/candidate) that commits its signatories to 'sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.' Neither Tom Campbell nor Carly Fiorina joined me in this. Worse, Carly Fiorina has been telling audiences that though she opposes this particular bill, she agrees with President Obama's 'goals' for healthcare reform. As recently as late October, she said she had no opinion on Obamacare -- surely the only public figure in America to have remained ignorant of this signal issue.

"I do not agree with President Obama's 'goals.' I am pledged to overturn what he's done today. I'm the only person in this race who can say that. And if I am sent to the United States Senate -- it will be job one."