Israel Plans Ceasefire, Hamas Vows to Fight On
(FROM: Reuters) Sadly, I think the headline says it all. Israel, no doubt affected on some level by the international sentiment toward their conflict with Hamas, looks as though they’ll pull back. In my opinion, it will be premature. Over and over again, it seems, Israel lobbied Hamas for a ceasefire, but the terrorists refused to stop lobbing rockets into Israel at Israeli civilians. I think the only viable option here was to depose Hamas or so cripple it that the Palestinian people demanded a change, perhaps to intervention from Egypt or some other entity with a lot at stake internationally. This result, however, is too bad. The rockets will continue to fall, Israeli men, women and children will continue to die at the hands and will of Hamas. Now, it’s a matter of whether or not Israel plans a violence-diffusing presence in Gaza like in the West Bank, and of course it’s a matter of how long before the remaining terrorist elements in Gaza smuggle in a weapon far more dangerous than any Qassam rocket. Whether they admit it or not, Israel is conscious of the biased international outcry; Hamas, even if they were the focus of such outcry, simply wouldn’t care. Gosh, I wish there was some other result.
- Mona Charen: Camera-Ready Victims — Hamas Practices Human Sacrifice; The World Shrugs (National Review)
Leave the New Deal in the History Books
(FROM: The Wall Street Journal) Great piece, drawing on many of the same ideas I tried to get across yesterday in When is Enough, Enough? — but because WSJ writer Mark Levey is a professional and likely had more than an hour to put things together, his piece is much more informative. Great read. Please pass it along.
- Economic Stimuli: What Will Work and What Won’t (Human Events)
- Trillion-Dollar Spree is Road to Ruin, Not Rally (Bloomberg)
(FROM: The Weekly Standard) As you can read here at America’s Right, I’m often reiterating ad nauseum that we need a smaller, less intrusive government, that we need to stay faithful to the tenets of conservatism and in doing so will prevail. In this piece, Matthew Continetti thinks people like me are a little off-base. From his piece:
Sorry, folks. The lesson of the last eight years is not that Americans want a smaller government. It’s that Americans recoil at what appears to be an incompetently run government out of touch with the major challenges of the day. Your average voter doesn’t mind government action if he deems it necessary to pursue a public good like national defense or supporting retirees. He votes for the party that has the most compelling program for the future, not the one simply trying to stand athwart it.
Conservatives have been successful not when they’ve rigidly opposed government, but when they’ve proposed a different type of government that produces conservative results. Barry Goldwater rode his extremism in the defense of liberty right into a political ditch, whereas Ronald Reagan campaigned and won on pro-growth tax cuts, a defense build-up, and national pride. It’s true that Reagan always regretted his inability to stop government expansion. But the voters had few such regrets.
I understand where he’s coming from, and I think that the perspectives he seeks to correct aren’t as far from his own perspective as he suggests. Of course SOME government intervention is good. I want legislation like the KIDS Act which will protect my daughter when she grows old enough to go online. I want certain government intervention — it’s just that most government intervention is in places with directly countermand conservative principles. We don’t need the Department of Education, as one state looking at the successes and failures of another may help everyone get stronger. We don’t need cap-and-trade legislation, as government mandates on emissions can only serve to force industry elsewhere. Anyway, I could go on for hours, but just wanted to point out a good, thought-provoking article.
Byron York: More Questions About Geithner
(FROM: National Review) A few days ago, when I wrote about the double standard regarding everyone’s attitude toward our favorite tax-delinquent Treasury Secretary nominee, I mentioned that I agreed with Orrin Hatch’s assessment that Geithner was qualified. I STILL say that, in terms of knowing the value of the free market, I think Geithner might be the best such candidate we can get out of Barack Obama, but the more and more I hear about the circumstances surrounding his non-payment of taxes, the more I’m starting to think that we should take our chances, roll the dice, and wait for Obama to come up with someone else.
Obama Interior Nominee to Consider New Ban on Oil Drilling in USA
(FROM: CNSNews) Energy independence is the key to everything. It is the key to national security, as we will no longer be beholden to and padding the wallets of elements across the world that would like to see our failure and destruction. It is the key to re-assuming our status as the economic superpower in the world, as the amount of oil and energy we sit on in Alaska, off our coast, and in shale deposits in the continental U.S. rival if not surpass what’s under the Middle East and Russia, and there is money in exporting energy rather than importing it. Energy independence should be our ultimate goal. Obviously, for some, it isn’t. When President Bush repealed the drilling ban in July, gas and oil prices began the slide which took us from the July high to our current low. As the price of oil fell, so did the influence of oil-rich countries which, unlike us, actually make use of their natural resources — Hugo Chavez, even, is apparently catching heat because the vast oil money has essentially dried up. There is no downside to energy independence that is not overshadowed by upside. Obama would be downright ignorant to the needs of America and the geopolitics of energy and power if he allows for the ban to be reinstated.