Dakota Beacon

The latest annual report from the non-partisan Tax Foundation ranks North Dakota 29th in the nation in the area of "Business Friendly Tax Policy." (The full PDF of the report can be found here.)

According to the report, North Dakota's ranking on Corporate Income Tax rates jumped from 30th to 21st based on the reduction of the top tax bracket from 6.5% to 5.15% and reducing the number of tax brackets from 5 to 3.

On the Personal Income Tax side, which are the rates that S-Corps and LLCs are subject to, the ranking only increased one notch from 36th to 35th based on the top tax rate dropping from 4.86% to 3.99%.

Our rankings for Sales Tax are much better because many states have considerably higher sales taxes than North Dakota. This year, North Dakota ranks 15th for sales tax.

When it comes to property taxes, the rankings are a little less straight-forward because there are several ways to compare property taxes due to the fact every state (and every county in some states) has a slightly different way of doing things. When you look at the map of property tax rates around the country, North Dakota is somewhere in the "average range".

This report should be an eye-opener for taxpayers and lawmakers.

Despite our state's windfall from oil tax profits, our state is having trouble capitalizing on the fact that no other state is in the position to dramatically reduce and reform its tax code like North Dakota is.

We have made gains over the last two legislative sessions when it comes to reducing income tax rates, and the legislature does deserve credit for that part.

But it would be a shame for the state to not take advantage of the fact that North Dakota hit the economic lottery.

29th place is simply not good enough.

America’s Catholic bishops are princes of diplomacy, highly educated, erudite, men of tact, propriety. They’re asked to shepherd the flock with a long historical timeframe—like, say, eternity. They tend not to have knee-jerk reactions to issues of the moment.

And so, it’s not often when a paragon of decorum, namely, Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, publishes a letter in his diocesan newspaper with a title like, “To hell with you.”

Gee, what could have provoked that? The answer is the Obama administration via its horrendous mandate to Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients—that is, birth-control drugs that induce abortion. The Catholic Church defines these things as “evil.” The Church and its members are now being told they must provide them. By fiat, the Obama administration has issued that decree.

It sort of flies in the face of that old freedom of religion thing we’ve always had in America. And it’s certainly of concern not merely to Catholics but all Americans.

Here’s what happened:

Last August, the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidelines for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as, “Obama-care.” The guidelines mandated that by summer 2012 all health-insurance plans—yes, all of them—must cover any and all FDA-approved contraception, sterilization procedures, and pharmaceuticals, even those that produce or result in abortion. Every employer and employee must pay for these things, even if they violate the dictates of their conscience. The employers include all Catholic institutions, from colleges to hospitals to nursing homes to social-service agencies to charities … to whatever else. “All” means “all.”

How’s that for social justice?

When ex-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a lifetime Roman Catholic, said that we’ll learn the details of Obama-care after Congress passes the legislation, this is a perfect illustration. The Devil is truly in the details.

In response to this screaming train-wreck, Catholics sent letters to Kathleen Sebelius, HHS secretary, who happens to be Roman Catholic. When she was governor of Kansas, Sebelius was so terrible on abortion, and so defiant of Church teaching, that her bishop ordered that she be denied Communion. Catholics protested directly to Sebelius.

On January 20, Sebelius and Barack Obama answered Catholics. As Bishop Zubik put it, “On Jan. 20, the Obama administration answered you and me. The response was very simple: ‘To hell with you.’”

Zubik writes: “This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone …. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom…. It undermines the whole concept and hope for healthcare reform by inextricably linking it to the zealotry of pro-abortion bureaucrats. The mandate would require the Catholic Church as an employer to violate its fundamental beliefs concerning human life and human dignity…. It is really hard to believe that it happened.”

All of the bishops are frustrated. Bishop Timothy Dolan of New York said that the Obama administration has basically told American Catholics that they have one year “to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

In Phoenix, Bishop Thomas Olmsted appeared to urge civil disobedience. In a letter read to every church in his diocese, Olmsted wrote: “Unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”

Also vowing non-compliance is Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay and Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati.  LifeNews.com reports. that 86 bishops (thus far) have spoken against the mandate.

The Obama administration has forced the bishops’ hand. President Obama and Secretary Sebelius are not backing down. They are true believers.

Where are liberals on this issue? We know they support the so-called “right to choose,” politically sanctified by Roe v. Wade in January 1973. But the Constitution predates Roe by a good 200 years. The First Amendment that begins the Bill of Rights starts with religious freedom. Are liberals so devoted to “abortion rights” that they will trump the conscience of their fellow Americans?

Apparently so. They’ve already ensured that my tax dollars fund Planned Parenthoot, the nation’s largest abortion provider. It was only a matter of time before they forced me to fund abortifacients. The direct funding of actual abortion procedures is no doubt next. It’s amazing, when it comes to abortion, pro-choice liberals have everything they want, but it isn’t enough. Now they want to force pro-lifers—and our churches—to pay for their choices.

Sadly, all of this was so painfully predictable back in November, 2008, when a majority of professing Roman Catholics voted Barack Obama president.

Well, you reap what you sow.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism: and :Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

Kevin Cramer’s decision to by-pass the North Dakota Republican State Convention and go directly to the people via the state primary with his campaign was met with some cheers, a little confusion - and  a lot of hostility from the entrenched Establishment (even some of those calling themselves “Conservatives”). Some might see it in a different light.  Some might discern the chronic and escalating sickness within the Republican Party in North Dakota. 

Yes, chronic.  This party has been existing, even in a “majority” status, without really being the party of the people of the state.  As a long-time participant in the system and an observer of the pattern that has taken firm hold in North Dakota, I have seen the frustration of those grassroots Republicans and Conservatives grow, year after year.  We have seen this party nominate and actively promote many candidates who are actually left of Democrats.  They are considered by these “experts” as “more electable” than someone representing a grassroots conservative groundswell.  We have seen this party go way out of its way in its determination to recruit someone – anyone! – to advance in place of a candidate they did not personally select.  We saw this in 2010 with the race for U.S. Senate. 

For months, in anticipation of a real scrap with heavily-financed, connected and many-termed incumbent Byron Dorgan, the one North Dakota citizen who dared to throw his hat in the ring was Paul Sorum.  He attended nearly every tea party event across the state.  He boldly set out his views and offered to debate all comers.  He listened to what others said at the rallies and meetings.  For months he was the only man in the state to challenge this ensconced Democrat.  He had an effect.  Suddenly, taking note of the inroads Sorum was making and correctly assessing the disfavor in which his party’s policies were held by the people of North Dakota, and the resonance of Sorum’s message, Dorgan announced his own withdrawal, despite his $5 million campaign chest. 

And what was the GOP’s reaction?  Quick, somebody!  Find out where John Hoeven is hiding!  Get him out here on stage so he can take his bows!  Sorum, not to stand aside, did go to the state’s convention where despite the party’s fix, he drew an impressive 20% of the vote of that well-vetted room.  Now, to understand the importance of this in grappling with what we are generously calling the “Republican Party”, let it be known that Mr. Hoeven, although a sitting governor, came very, very late to politics.  And very unsteadily, we might note.  He first thought about running for office and then thought it might be relevant to choose a party, since it’s the parties who print up the tickets.  First he thought he was a Democrat, and cited his greatest mentors as Dorgan and Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat and former State Attorney General.  Then someone must have whispered in his ear to let him know that it might be easier to win as a Republican.  So then he decided he was a Republican.  But one who severely criticized Republican Governor Ed Schafer, nonetheless.  Once he got that out of the way, it was clear sailing. 

Everyone “in the Party” got behind him.  The bandwagon groaned under the weight of the party elite.  He was the Toast of the Town now and no one dare speak a word against his fair-haired candidacy.  No one ever seemed remotely interested in just what made him such a terrific candidate.  Nor what his political “views” were. That’s up to the rest of us to figure out.  Enough that the elite wanted to rub elbows with this newly minted Republican in the nice suit.  It has taken him all the way to Washington. 

We’ve seen it again and again.  How else can we explain to our saner friends, for example,  the deep GOP attachment to Mark Andrews? 

Now we have three OPEN seats in the next election.  NO INCUMBENTS.  But lots and lots of choices.  And where is the NDGOP coming down?  Surprise!  No debates.  The fix is already in.  Sorum, the stalwart Conservative is supposed to be shown the gate.  That’s the plan, anyway.  We, the voters, don’t need to hear what his views are or how he would govern.  We just need to know what those special “select delegates” Dalrymple is talking to have decided.  Sort of North Dakota’s own “Bilderbergers”.  The Senate seat has already been wrapped and is just waiting for the bow from the state convention for Rick Berg.  We don’t know who has been picked out for us yet for the U.S. House, but Cramer probably was wise, being one of the serious Conservatives, not to bet that the gift was his. 

The surprise package might be chosen by others, however.  The convention might order a la carte this time and choose its own candidates for office.  The people will have a choice this time around, in the case of the House seat at least.  Whoever is selected for the honors in Bismarck will have to prove himself in the arena of public opinion – right down here in the public square with the rest of us “peones”.  Cramer has promised us a voice this time around. 

The “official” GOP would be very wise to insist on debates.  This will be a difficult year in which to elect a Democrat.  It could still happen, but I suggest that this is more likely if the GOP candidate is not seen as “of the people”.   Any candidate who is seen as being forced down our throats will have a much more hazardous campaign in the general election.  Cramer, if he wins the primary, will have established his credentials.  He is already known as a dauntless Conservative; whoever wins the primary will be known as the people’s choice. 

The governorship and U.S. Senate are another matter.  While we can all assume this will be largely a “Republican” year, these two races feature some of the Democrat Party’s first-line candidates.  Heidi Heitkamp has held state-wide office and is known and liked.  If she prevails over Tom Potter she will be a serious contender against the Republican candidate for Senate.  The GOP’s candidate had better convince “the people” that he’s one of them.  The governor race appears to be between Ryan Taylor and the Republican nominee.  That nominee had better be one of the people, too.  Taylor has already let us know that he sees himself that way, and his “shock” at the repudiation of the debate option by Jack Dalrymple is the first shot across the GOP’s bow.  There will be lots more and we can expect a tough fight between the candidates in the general election.

The point of the foregoing discussion is that the ND GOP has been distancing itself from the grassroots increasingly and at some point the Conservative people of the state will rebel.  Not a moment too soon, either. Because not only is this elitist behavior a disservice to the ND voters and the grassroots of the party, it is becoming ever more dangerous to govern our state and country through these party pets.  Party hacks could get away with the “clothespin” approach (“hold your nose and pull the lever”) and get their boys into office, but what happens then?  They end up voting for and proposing more unsustainable spending and more government interference in our economy and private lives, eroding our pursuit of happiness and our freedom.  Can we afford to keep holding our noses? 

The ND GOP must insist that any candidate it supports be willing to debate all comers BEFORE they give him the cigar at the convention.  I would suggest that if Berg is “the man” for the Senate job he should have no trouble exposing his views and his voting record to debate with veteran Conservative Duane Sand.  He seems not to see it that way.  If Jack Dalrymple expects to be handed the nomination for governor without the courtesy of a debate with a serious Conservative opponent, the party will be doing another disservice by accommodating him.  Debate is a constructive way to get the measure of the candidates.  The parties should be trying to field the BEST candidate – not shield their favorite from the scrutiny of the convention delegates and primary voters.  It should be an effective tool FOR THE PARTY ORGANIZATIONS to help them select people who are most fit to govern.

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government and the Executive Committee of the Valley Tea Party Conservative Coalition.  For the past 48 years she has served the Republican Party organizations in various capacities in North Dakota and Minnesota.  Read her blogs at vtpcc.com.

Many Americans (including the  Democratic Party’s violent and lawless Occupy Wall Street protestors) have such a sense of narcissism that they actually believe that it’s a crime against  humanity if government doesn’t take money from those who earned it and use it to  provide for them. The Democratic Party and its mainstream media are playing to  this over inflated sense of self-worth by waging class warfare against those who  create jobs and make this country work.

Socialism is a promise from politicians of a utopia void of  poverty. Socialists promise food, clothing, housing, retirement income and  healthcare for all. They argue that these things should be free in a “fair” and  “just” society and would be if it wasn’t for “greedy” rich people. This promise  has been made many times, but never once kept because the real objective is the
power of government over the people.

Today even the poorest of Americans enjoy a prosperity never before  seen in the history of the world because we are free to accumulate wealth.  Before our nation’s founding, people risked their lives crossing the ocean so  that they could try to survive in a harsh and deadly wilderness. They didn’t want security; they wanted freedom from the governments that were forcing them  to live in poverty. Our nation’s founding and our constitution was a triumph of  the people over government and poverty. This victory is about to be wiped out by  the radical Marxist in the White House and his Socialist Democratic Party. They
fully intend to replace our freedom with their welfare state.

Don’t fall for the class  warfare in the upcoming election; history documents its fruits well. From the  Soviet Union to Nazi Germany and yes even the bloody communist dictatorship of  China (seen as a utopia by many Democrats); class warfare has yet to produce  anything but poverty, misery, oppression, concentration camps and mass graves.  Just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, America will go there one day. Let’s  make sure that day is not in our children’s lifetimes.

Well, the Y2K apocalypse has failed to occur. By now we were supposed to be devouring our children (or being devoured by them). The Third Millennium is off to a smooth start.

The Second Millennium ended with a pretty lousy century. Let's hope we can put it behind us and move on. The three men most often named as "Person of the Century" - Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Albert Einstein - were benefactors, allies, and admirers of one of the bloodiest men of the millennium, Joseph Stalin. It's as if the three most distinguished men of the Middle Ages had all been pals of Genghis Khan.



Even the phrase "Person of the Century" is a relic of the archaic feminist thinking of the twentieth century. Obviously the most influential individual of any century is likely to be male, but by the late twentieth century it was a breach of etiquette - an ideological code of manners - to acknowledge such things. As recently as this week I read an article arguing for homosexual "marriage" - another example of the outmoded twentieth-century attitudes some people still can't let go of.



The twentieth century was marked by its smug belief in its superiority to all earlier ages. It decided that the immemorial morals and customs of mankind should be changed - as if that were even possible. The state would be the instrument of "building a new society" by means of force, propaganda, and economic dependence. Tyranny became "liberation," degeneracy "progress."
The state's new mission was to cut all roots in the past that might enable its subjects to resist assimilation to the New Society. Those who managed to maintain their roots were accused of treason, reaction, racism, superstition, and hate. The state claimed to be "scientific." It acted in the name of "the oppressed": "the people," "the proletariat," "the masses," "minorities," "women," and even sexual deviants (who were "victims" of the traditional moral code).



The twentieth-century state denied God and the existence of any stable human nature, both of which imply immutable standards of right and wrong that might limit the authority and power of the state. It claimed the power to eradicate all old laws and replace them with new ones that suited its purposes. Even written constitutions could be "reinterpreted" in keeping with the
demands of the New Society. Plain words whose meaning had never been in doubt became "living documents," arbitrarily endowed with wholly new meanings by state officials.



Old sins like fornication, sodomy, and abortion became new "rights." Meanwhile, traditional rights like property ownership were severely curtailed. Through the state, with its boundless taxing power, some people could live off the productive energy of others. This was called "social justice." The twentieth-century state became obsessed with preserving the natural
environment, even as it demolished the moral, spiritual, and cultural environment of Christendom.



Artists, scholars, and philosophers became enthusiasts of the New Society, hostile to the "bourgeoisie" and "the middle class," as the remnants of traditional society were scornfully called. Obscenity and obscurity, dissonance and ugliness, became hallmarks of twentieth-century art. Popular art, still bound by the market, found obscenity more profitable than obscurity, but rarely challenged the premises of the New Society.



Education, controlled by the state, became propaganda, called "consciousness-raising," designed to make children submissive units of the New Society. The idea of "evolution" was adapted to teach children that the New Society was the inevitable development of human history. The mass-produced "intellectual" (the opposite of the traditional independent scholar) became a new social type, devoted to the fantasies of the New Society, which were called "ideals."

Since the aims of the New Society were fundamentally impossible, resistance continued and partly succeeded. God and human nature still existed and asserted themselves through men like Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Pope John Paul II, who struck chords in millions and undermined the legitimacy of the New Society.

By the end of the century, men's minds were still entangled in the tattered delusions of the New Society. But even "progressive" politicians found it advantageous to pay lip service to Jesus Christ and human freedom. Mankind may yet recover from
the twentieth century.

###

[This column was
published originally by Griffin Internet Syndicate on January 4, 2000.]

###

The
Reactionary Utopian by Joe Sobran is copyright (c) 2011 by the Fitzgerald
Griffin Foundation http://www.fgfbooks.com.

All rights reserved.

MOSCOW, January 28, 2012 – The word "gospel" is frequently used in the English language. We have all heard it many times, but not many of us know what it really means.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

This holds true even among Christians. Many believers would be hard-pressed to accurately define its meaning, even though the concept of the Gospel stands at the very center of the Christian faith.

The word "gospel" comes from the Anglo-Saxon word godspel, a composite term consisting of two words: god, which meant good, and spel, which meant "news."

The old English term is a word-for-word rendition of the Greek word euangelion, which literally means “good telling” or “good news.”

This word appears some seventy-five times in the New Testament. We should be glad of it, since the news it announces is good indeed. That news is this: Even though all men are sinners deserving of eternal death in a place called hell, God has provided a way of escape.

We deserve God's wrath, because we all have offended against God by willfully violating the moral law he gave us as a rule of conduct. If we honestly examine our lives we cannot but realize how far short we fall of the moral standard that God implanted in our conscience. Lying, manipulating, stealing are only some of the practices we routinely engage in. Worse yet, we do these things while knowing we should not.

“The soul who sins shall die,” God tells us. This puts us in a seemingly hopeless predicament: Fallen and guilty, we have no way of justifying ourselves before our Creator. “We all have sinned, and our souls must be lost, if God deal with us according to his holy law,” observes Matthew Henry in his commentary.

But the good news is that God has provided a way out for guilty sinners like us. He sent his Son – Jesus Christ – to take upon himself men's sins and pay the penalty due to it by his propitiatory death on the cross.

This is how the Apostle Paul puts it:

“God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.”

This is the gospel in a nutshell, which is the good news that men can be reconciled to God through the life, death and resurrection of his son.

In order to participate in this good news, however, one must repent of sin and accept Christ's atoning sacrifice by faith. “Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life,” we read in the third chapter of John's gospel.

There can be no better news than this.

___________________

Born and raised under communism, Vasko Kohlmayer is a naturalized American citizen. He has lived in several countries under various forms of government, but he still marvels at the goodness of God and the wonder of life.

He has written for a number of newspapers, magazines and internet journals. Vasko currently lives in Europe with his long-suffering wife and two beautiful daughters. He is the founder of The Christian Writers Foundation.

>

On Tuesday evening, I had the honor of attending the State of the Union address as the guest of Congressman Mike Kelly (PA-03). Here are my impressions in abbreviated form: 

The address seemed more like a rewrite of previous speeches than an original work. Sure, there were new anecdotes and fresh twists on old policy proposals, but the essential narrative remains: My predecessor messed up; none of your problems are my fault; I can make life fairer if Congress will approve my plans to increase federal spending and take more money from Peter to help Paul. 

Even President Obama’s partisan allies seem to have wearied of the “same old, same old.” I was struck by how often the Democratic applause seemed tepid and tentative. (It sounded louder on the TV replay—amazing how electronics can create an illusion.) Statements that would have elicited enthusiastic cheers three years ago were met with uneasy silence. Yes, Democrats stood and clapped when the president mentioned one of their pet causes, but their efforts seemed forced, neither heartfelt nor genuine. 

The president started and finished by paying tribute to our military and stating the truism that Americans can accomplish great things when we are united. Bravo. But in between those patriotic bookends was a dismal speech. Could the American people possibly be ignorant or gullible enough to accept all the fallacies and half-truths in this speech? Here is a sampling: 

The president claimed that three million jobs have been created in the last 22 months. Perhaps. But how many jobs have ended during that same time period? Labor force participation is still trending down, and unemployment and underemployment remain so severe that 19 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 are living with their parents. These are not signs of a healthy job market. 

President Obama promised no more bailouts, yet one of his pet causes is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that authorizes bailouts of “too big to fail” financial institutions. He promised no more handouts, yet in the same speech proposed handouts and subsidies to certain businesses, homeowners, etc. 

He proposed increased government control over capital and banks. He wants to require banks to refinance mortgages on terms set by the government.  

He also proposed a Financial Crimes Unit to combat fraud. (Are the FBI, the Federal Reserve, and some 116 federal agencies with oversight of financial institutions not enough?) If the president succeeds in establishing an anti-fraud squad, will it crack down on the entities that promise to fund retirement programs but instead borrow money to cover current disbursements? That is what the Social Security System is doing because of President Obama’s two-percent cut in withholding from wages. Will Uncle Sam be exempt from oversight by the Financial Crimes Unit?  

Even Obama’s choice of words was telling. He spoke of his desire to “consolidate” the federal bureaucracy, not “shrink” it. 

At one point, Obama remarked that Americans are “cynical” about Washington. His address helps explain why. His talk of unity was belied by his second-class treatment of Republicans during the address. The Democrats had printed copies of Obama’s text—a simple courtesy denied to Republicans.

After raising the American flag and extolling the great accomplishments of our military forces, President Obama made it clear that the only federal spending he is serious about cutting is military spending. To add insult to injury, he will order the Navy to waste part of its (reduced) budget purchasing over-priced and less reliable green energy.  

Imposing politically correct energy on our armed forces illustrates how obsessed this president is with centralizing economic planning. It reminds me of the Chevy Volt fiasco. First, Team Obama coerced GM into making a high-cost, uneconomical car that few people want; then it boosted the Volt’s sales figures by directing federal departments to purchase Volts. Now, after spending billions to artificially increase the supply of high-cost, uneconomical wind and solar energy, President Obama will use his authority as Commander in Chief to artificially increase demand for green energy. First, the president uses taxpayer money to subsidize an inferior, unwanted product, then he uses taxpayer money to buy it—a double whammy. 

Appealing to our national pride, President Obama promised not to cede dominance in green energy production to China and Germany. Excuse me, but who wants to be Number One at losing money? Please, let the Germans and Chinese take over those money-losing boondoggles. With over $15 trillion of national debt, we can’t afford them. 

President Obama’s SOTU address demonstrated that he has no intention of altering his course. If you’re satisfied with his policies over the last three years, maybe he’s your man. If you think we need to try something different, he’s probably not. 

— Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.  

With breaking news of a U.S. Navy SEAL team successfully rescuing two hostages from pirates in Somalia, military pundits are quick to note how the deployment of small, elite units will fit in with President Barack Obama's vision for modernizing the U.S. military. Yet, while small, elite units are indeed crucial to the modern military, so too is a balance of force structures, doctrines, and technologies appropriate to a variety of challenges. At the strategic level, preparing for twenty-first century threats means thinking holistically on a global scale..

First, we must define the threats. China and Russia present the greatest long-range threat to U.S. national security interests. More immediately, the threat issues from a nuclear-armed Iran, especially if Tehran's alliances extend beyond Syria to North Korea, Venezuela and—not unthinkably at some point—a drug-cartel dominated Mexico. At another level, insurgencies and civil wars in Africa and South America are likely to continue. Additionally, threats from international terrorism, in some cases allied with the four rogue states cited above and, possibly, criminal cartels, enlarges the threat profile.

With the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and the current winding down of our presence in Afghanistan, the Army seems to be sending mixed messages about its future. While the Navy and Air Force have formulated an air-sea concept for meeting future threats from major powers or would-be regional hegemons like Iran, the Army struggles with how to recapture the conventional war-fighting concepts and skills lost or, at the least, degraded during the last decade.

In a way, the present harkens back to the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam conflict when the predominant attitude was, "We ain't doing that again." Attention turned to more conventional forms of warfare attendant to stopping a Soviet attack at the Fulda Gap during the era of Air-Land Battle.

The reality is, of priorities to meet a full range of threats, or we face total defeat at the high end of the spectrum on the one hand, or death by a thousand cuts through inappropriate organization, doctrine, and training at the lower end.counterinsurgency, irregular warfare, and terrorism are not going away. U.S. national security strategy must, therefore, indulge in a delicate balance

China—and to a lesser extent Russia—and perhaps North Korea and Iran, demand a strategy built around force projection over long distances. That means investment in high tech (and high cost) systems like aircraft carriers, long-range submarines, and attack aircraft. The high cost of these systems, however, is a plus. Government spending on defense means good jobs for highly skilled workers that will stimulate the economy by boosting both production and service-industry jobs to employ the less skilled. The technological fallout from research on (needed) high-tech weapon systems will infuse new vitality into American leadership in a wide variety of fields from electronics to automotive engineering. In short, build more warships, submarines, and high-tech fighter planes like the F-22 and F-35, along with 20 to 40 more B-2s to replace the B-52s in our inventory. We should also look at the stealth bomber for the period beyond 2040.

The most likely scenarios involving the Army and Marine Corps will be in areas of global instability, most notably Africa. These can be met with special operations forces and with highly deployable brigades capable of unleashing overwhelming firepower on any potential threats to U.S. interests or to our allies. The role of the Reserve components will remain important should a conflict become more protracted, requiring a longer-term employment of ground forces. The added capabilities inherent in air power and precision strike from the air, space or sea will prove critical in diminishing the conventional capabilities of any mid-range threat that might result from an Iran or similar forces.

To be unprepared for threats ranging from pirates to major powers is a threat to our nation and its economic prosperity. The alternative will be protracted conflict coupled with increasing subservience to entities with the will to dominate.

—Dr. Earl Tilford is a military historian and fellow for the Middle East & terrorism with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. A retired Air Force intelligence officer, Dr. Tilford earned his PhD in American and European military history at George Washington University. From 1993 to 2001, he served as Director of Research at the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Institute. In 2001, he left Government service for a professorship at Grove City College, where he taught courses in military history, national security, and international and domestic terrorism and counter-terrorism.

It is time that someone said, straight up and out loud, “Enough.“

As America flirts with permanent economic decline, certain GOP presidential contenders talk of gay marriage, Charles Darwin, and religiosity.  Are we losing our minds?

While the current progressive regime is rife with overbearing economic and social agendas, the critical battle — which, if lost, would render all other battles irrelevant — is singularly economic in nature.

Let Election 2012 not be about spreading “conservative values” throughout the land.  Let the election be about restoring America to economic good health.  Let the election be about freeing the people from legislative, regulatory, and judicial tyranny inflicted by congresses, administrations, and courts both Democrat and Republican.

Now is not the time in the course of human events to push what Peter Berkowitz calls “The Myth of Conservative Purity.” Berkowitz observes:

The great mission of American conservatism — securing the conditions under which liberty flourishes — has always depended on the weaving together of imperfectly compatible principles and applying them to an evolving and elusive political landscape.

There will be plenty time for America to debate the contentious social issues that distinguish the progressives who dominate government, education, and media from the conservatives who once enjoyed but lost similar dominion.  But there will be time for such debates only if America returns to prosperity.  Without economic healing, economic survival will consume the people.

Conservatives could choose to expend energy asserting mythically pure values, but this won’t bring Barack Obama’s defeat.  GOP contenders, and later the GOP nominee, can either try to push a rope uphill or advocate a doable conservatism — i.e., a non-idealistic approach.

An eminently doable form of conservatism is something with which most Americans would be happy.  Vociferous ideologues relentlessly claim inside knowledge of the American mindset, but in reality, the conditions that would please most people are simple and few: a physically secure country, government that maintains that security and plays favorites with no corporation or individual, and citizens free to pursue lawful aspirations without governmental interference and imposed social agendas.

Today’s America is home to armies at both ends of the sociopolitical spectrum, with warriors preaching of giving no quarter to the “other side.”  On the sociopolitical left, many soldiers speak venomously, thuggishly, often using wartime metaphors.  Indeed, staunch ideologues of all stripes see conciliation as the path of weaklings.  But Berkowitz instructively points out that although many conservatives see compromise as “the province of the mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed, and lily-livered[,] … when circumstances warrant — and they often will — compromise will be the considered choice of the steely-eyed and stouthearted.”

In other words, it takes confidence and courage to willingly engage threats posed by ideological impurities.  It takes wisdom and patience to hunker down and weather the threats to achieve the objectives demanded by one’s principles.

To win the White House and possibly the Senate, while maintaining a majority in the House of Representatives, Republicans must sell to a critical mass of “independent” voters a plan consisting of more than promises.  And the plan must be focused.  It must stick to economics.  The GOP presidential nominee’s platform must hint of no rhetoric on gay marriage and the theory of evolution, with no overly enthusiastic speechifying on illegal immigration.

Such distractions would alienate voters who otherwise have been growing more and more inclined to embrace conservative politicians.  By railing against gay marriage, illegal immigration, and Darwin at this point in time, the GOP presidential nominee could easily antagonize the very people itching to vote against Obama.  Indeed, a most dunderheaded Republican tack right now would be to parade religiosity as not just a conservative virtue, but also a virtue required to lead America out of an utterly secular disaster.

Two GOP presidential contenders’ campaigns suggest a belief that Christians who oppose illegal immigration, gay marriage, and the theory of evolution will not support a candidate who refuses to carry the religious right’s banner all the way to the polls.  If this belief reflects reality, then disengaged “values-driven” conservatives could assure the reelection of Barack Obama.

It remains distinctly possible that Republican presidential contenders will continue to push divisive social issues even as America faces economic oblivion.  On the other hand, the candidates may abstain from the social rhetoric, motivating social conservatives to stay home on November 6, 2012.

But there is a third option, in which social conservatives accept a Republican candidate with a solid plan to defeat Barack Obama even if that plan is silent on social issues.  If this sane and most pragmatic alternative does not materialize, then history might record that social conservatives were willing to let an unimaginable reality — four more years of the most destructive American presidency ever — come to pass.

I cannot accept that conservatives would invite this mother of all calamities.

MOSCOW

Nearly three decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutionally protected. Ostensibly libertarian, the ruling was actually one of the most tyrannical acts in American history.

What greater power can the state claim than the power to redefine human life itself -- to withdraw protection from an entire category of human beings? And what greater power could the Federal Government usurp than the power of the individual states to protect
innocent life from violent death?

The pro-abortion movement has been consistent only in its inconsistency. It began by agreeing with its opponents that abortion was wrong, but arguing that abortion, when banned by law, "happens anyway" and could be better regulated -- made "safe" -- if legalized. Of course this could be said of any crime: murder, burglary, and incest, though banned by law, "happen anyway." Should they too be legalized?

Later the pro-abortion propaganda apparat took a new position: that when life begins is a "religious" question, beyond the competence of the state to decide. Oddly enough, my Darwinian public-school biology teachers used to answer the question without consulting their Bibles: life began at conception. Frog life, bovine life, human life. But in those days nobody had any axes to grind, so nobody denied or evaded the obvious. "When does life begin?" became a mystery only with the emergence of a political interest in killing the unborn.

Still later, the pro-abortion -- alias "pro-choice" -- crowd decided that abortion, far from being a necessary evil, was a positive good, which the state should not only tolerate but support, encourage, subsidize, maximize. Taxpayers should be forced to payfor abortions. They should have no more "choice" than the child.

How did the pro-abortion position evolve from the necessary evil position to the positive good position? Easy. The Court arbitrarily ruled that the U.S. Constitution shelters abortion. Did the Court cite any passage in the Constitution saying so? No. Did it find
any evidence that the Framers hoped to protect abortion? No. Did it name any justice of the Court, even the most liberal, who had ever claimed constitutional protection for abortion before 1973? No. It merely discovered, all of a sudden, that the abortion laws of all 50 states had been violating the Constitution all along, even when nobody suspected it.

This fantastic ruling generated a new debate about the "original intent" of the Constitution. Liberals argued that "original intent" didn't matter or was unknowable anyway. The Constitution didn't have a single fixed meaning; it "evolved" over time. Any interpretation was bound to be more or less "subjective" -- yet somehow the Court's subjective rulings had the binding force of law.

This amounted to saying that the Constitution means whatever today's liberal interpreters choose to say it means. If that were so, there would be no point in having a written constitution, or for that matter any written law. We would be defenseless against legal sophistry, especially the sophistry of self-aggrandizing power. That's the perfect prescription for tyranny, the opposite of the rule of law.

Anti-abortion forces thought they had a winning Issue when they raised the subject of the agony the aborted child may suffer, as rendered visible in films of aborted fetuses. The pro-abortion crowd replied -- when they didn't just ignore the question -- that nobody

really knew whether abortion caused pain. But when the issue of late-term (or "partial-birth") abortion emerged, it transpired that they didn't care at all whether a fully developed baby suffered when its skull was crushed and evacuated.

The Court agreed. It had originally made quibbling distinctions among first, second, and third trimesters of pregnancy, holding that a state might protect a child in the third trimester, when it had achieved "viability" and was capable of living outside the womb. But now the viability pretext was discarded. Killing the unborn was constitutionally protected at every stage between conception and live birth.

Right from the start, the pro-abortion movement has been defined by shifting arguments, fallacies, evasions, lame excuses, and utter bad faith. The Court has not only acted as part of that movement, but has been its greatest asset, sparing it the need for persuasion by imposing its arbitrary will on the entire United States -- and in the name of the Constitution it actually despises.

[This column was published originally by Griffin Internet Syndicate on January 15, 2002.]

###

The Reactionary Utopian by Joe Sobran is copyright (c) 2011 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation http://www.fgfbooks.com.

All rights reserved.

It may be forwarded if attribution is given to the author and fgfBooks.com. For permission to publish or post this column,

contact Fran Griffin at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

###

Joe Sobran's book, Single Issues: Essays on the Crucial Social Questions (Human Life Press, 1983) is out-of-print but available in pdf format on a CD for $10. Call or write to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) for details or send a check to the address below