Commentary By

Jay B Gaskill

In one week I and millions of other American will vote to elect the president of the only nation on earth that still has the capacity to rescue a sick and dying civilization from its own demons.  And, no, I am not suggesting a doctrine of American perfectionism here.  We have our own demons.  But we retain an essential measure of optimism, a sufficient dedication to the great freedom-traditions and still represent the only nation on earth with the capacity to project military power across the globe that is capable of unseating tyrants.

This is the core of American exceptionalism.

Like many of us, I live in one of those intensely colored states (deep blue, in California’s case), in which one’s presidential vote is already deeply buried by the winner-take-all Electoral College allocation, as it would be in my other state (deep red, in Idaho’s case, were I voting near my birthplace).

So those who have the privilege and duty to vote in the less partisan states where the outcome is still open, will effectively be choosing the man who will be sworn in as POTUS on January 20th 2013.

I personally believe that all of the undecideds are breaking sharply towards Governor Romney because the Obama campaign’s strategy of trying to vilify a good man failed, and the objective factors (if the US were a business, the owners would simply fire the CEO at this point) have cut in.

But I am not persuaded yet that the peculiar operation of the winner-take-all Electoral College will line up with the popular vote.  A 51% to 49% Romney victory could still be a 270 Electoral College win for President Obama.  If that outcome would result in a more conciliatory, less polarizing, more bipartisan, more problem-solving Obama, I would be far less worried.  But those terms more aptly describe the challenger than the incumbent.

Columnist Michael Gerson, writing in The Washington Post, has put it perfectly:

“The problem is that large issues – avoiding the fiscal cliff, reforming the tax code, making entitlement commitments more sustainable – are coming. Either Obama will have to become an entirely different type of leader – or America needs a new one.”

[SEE a more extended quote and the links below.]

The irony of Mr. Obama’s Hope and Change 2008 campaign is palpable.  I can detect no rational basis for any hope that Mr. Obama will change in 2013 as, for example, Mr. Clinton did in his second term. To paraphrase Gerson, Obama is extremely unlikely to “become an entirely different type of leader”.


This could well be a Romney landslide.  However that plays out, I hope and pray that the Electoral College vote lines up with the popular vote.  If it does not, there will be hell to pay.




Copyright © 2012 by Jay B Gaskill, Attorney at Law (except for the quoted Gerson material where the copyright is retained by Mr. Gerson and the Washington Post)


Forwards, links and quotations with attribution are welcome and encouraged.  For everything else, please contact the author via email .





Cost of Obama’s health care bullying

Michael Gerson

Published 6:35 p.m., Monday, October 29, 2012


As published in The Washington Post


And in the San Francisco Chronicle


Obama tends to overestimate his negotiating skills with Congress, which are poor – also displayed in his failed attempt to achieve a grand budget compromise in 2011. When the ideological stakes are highest, Obama jettisons bipartisanship with little thought or regret. He was perfectly willing to reorganize one-sixth of the economy on a party-line vote. He has employed tactics that ensure future partisan bitterness. His persuasive powers on the issue of health care turned out to be limited. The more he spoke, the less public support he found. But he proved incapable of creative ideological readjustment.


Obama’s largest achievement turned out to be a self-indictment. He has not shown the leadership skills or the inclination to create consensus around large issues. The problem is that large issues – avoiding the fiscal cliff, reforming the tax code, making entitlement commitments more sustainable – are coming. Either Obama will have to become an entirely different type of leader – or America needs a new one.




A Naked Emperor’s Clothes Analysis


Jay B Gaskill, Attorney at Law

As a downloadable PDF file


I prefer good news over bad, but the truth over delusion. Has unemployment really taken a sudden pre-election decrease?

Long term employment improvement prospects are linked to the growth of the general economy (as expressed in the GDP), and in the growth in the labor force, the new workers who enter the job market every month as our population increases.

Understanding this context changes everything about the government press release trumpeting an unemployment decline from 8.1% to a mere 7.8%.  The real number was 14.7% and remains stuck at 14.7%.


FIRST: GDP is not growing fast enough to support the current labor market…

…let alone fast enough to make a dent in the 12.6 million army of the out-of work men and women. Spin can only go so far, but the true numbers have a way of leaking out.

“NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The U.S. economy grew even slower than initially reported in the second quarter, as both consumers and businesses spent less than originally thought, and the drought in the Midwest limited agricultural production.

“Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation’s economic health, grew at an annual rate of 1.3% from April to June, the Commerce Department said Thursday, slower than the 1.7% rate the government last reported in August.

“The downward revision came as a surprise to economists who were largely expecting the figure to remain unchanged. It also marked slower growth than in the first three months of the year, when GDP accelerated at a 2% annual rate.

‘”The 1.3% increase in GDP was the weakest since the third quarter of last year and one of the weakest seen since the recovery began three years ago.”’



SECOND: Real unemployment is not down .3% for September.

In the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics press release (, we were just told that the unemployment rate has fallen .3% from – 8.1% to 7.8% for the month of September.

“Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 114,000 in September. In 2012, employment growth has averaged 146,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. In September, employment rose in health care and in transportation and warehousing.”


But most of the employment growth is automatically eaten up by the growth of the labor force.


The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) (whose advisory board includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Janet Gornick, Professor at the CUNY Graduate School and Director of the Luxembourg Income Study; and Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University) reminds us that “the underlying rate of labor force growth is now just 0.7 percent annually. This comes to roughly 1,050,000 a year or just under 90,000 a month.”


Buy this measure, our advertised recovery has been little more than treading water, while the GNP has gradually weakened.


The employed/unemployed numbers for the prior month (August) were   Labor Force: 155,255,000 /Employed:  142,558,000 / Unemployed: 12,696,000 (8.2%  /  8.1%)

Source: Research and Analysis Unit, Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development – using federal Data & procedures.


Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics ‘ own numbers, the September 2012 press release claimed a net gain (over the baseline labor force growth) of only 24,000 jobs.


This is a straightforward calculation. Let’s refer to the raw number of August unemployed (12,696,000). Add the new labor force growth of 90,000 and subtract the claimed new jobs in September of 114,000.  By this measure unemployment would have diminished in September from 12,696,000 to 12, 974,000, an unemployment decline of only 24,000 jobs. But that’s a change of .189 %, not the .3% claimed.  Has someone has been tinkering with the underlying rate of labor growth?


Look for a downward revision of this number in the next few weeks.





It gets worse.  On the face of it, when we take into account the underemployment figures that have disclosed that we have been living with a double digit unemployment problem for the last three years, the achievement is even more underwhelming. The “other” measure of employment distress is called U6


“The 7.8% figure reflects the percentage of the total workforce who are unemployed and are actively looking for work. This figure does not include unemployed members of the workforce who are not actively looking for work; nor does it factor in workers with part-time jobs who are seeking full-time employment. When these workers are included, the (U-6) un/underemployment rate for September remained at 14.7% as it had been in August.”

In the same Bureau of Labor Statistics press release, we learned that-


“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.” That is a net negative change of 600,000, a negative percentage change of 7.5%.



FOUR: Don’t be spun by the spin.


When you fold these factors back into the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics press release, you end up with a snapshot of what stagnation looks like, not a recovery. When our new president confidently predicted that his first stimulus program, consisting mostly of money for time-limited government projects, would shock the economy into life, his maladroit medical image revealed a critical error in his economic thinking.  You don’t shock a cancer patient into health.  Every measure Mr. Obama or fed head Bernanke have used or proposed since then have been directed at stimulating consumption.  But these days consumer consumption eventually finds its way to Chinese factories, not US ones.


If we were a corporation by now we would have replaced the management team. Where is Steve Jobs when we need him?



Copyright © 2012 by Jay B Gaskill, attorney at Law

As always, quotations with attribution, links and forwards are welcome and encouraged.

For everything else, please contact the author directly via email






A Quick Post-debate Analysis

Also available

HTM on the Policy Think Site

PDF download                       


By Jay B Gaskill

In an unguarded comment about Governor Romney last week, one of CNN’s liberal analysts, when talking about the governor’s performance in the primary debates, observed – “it seemed like he was the only adult on the stage.” How prescient.

After the debate last night, a focus group (this was on Fox) consisting entirely of uncommitted voters most of whom had voted for Obama last time, were converted to Romney.  The most salient comment was to the effect that the filtered campaign image of Romney was so skewed that, when the real man showed up, they were blown away.  Frank Luntz, the focus group specialist a veteran of many campaigns (he worked for Ross Perot back in the day) said that this was unique in his experience, a very big deal.

I have maintained that Mr. Romney (who blew through both a law degree and an MBA at Harvard) is both more disciplined and more intelligent than Mr. Obama.  That showed.  He is also more decent than Mr. Obama is.  And that also showed.

The real problem for the incumbent president, now that a real opponent who has moved to front stage has showed up, is what analysts are calling the objective factors.  As I pointed out earlier,

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) (whose advisory board includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Janet Gornick, Professor at the CUNY Graduate School and Director of the Luxembourg Income Study; and Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University) reminds us that “the underlying rate of labor force growth is now just 0.7 percent annually. This comes to roughly 1,050,000 a year or just under 90,000 a month.”


The CEPR and similar credible sources remind us that the touted net gain of 300,000 jobs for the Obama administration to date was at least 2.7 million jobs short of treading water.


{ }


To prevail in November, Mr. Obama must persuade a majority of voters that, having gravely misunderestimated the gravity, scope and seriousness of the nation’s economic problems, he is still the best person to fix it.  Mr. Romney’s appearance late night, gracefully dominating the stage, looking and acting more presidential than the incumbent, must have seemed like the ill wind (from the Obama campaign’s frame of reference) that augurs that perfect storm they have always feared.  Their problem is twofold: [1] Now that Governor Romney’s core decency is fully evident, all the personal attacks on him will fall flat. [2] The objective factors will dominate.

Stay tuned.




Copyright © 2012 by Jay b Gaskill, Attorney at Law

Forwards, pull quotes with attribution, and links are welcome and appreciated.

For everything else, please contact the author via email at < >.


The Three Red Lines

Why Character Matters

The debates matter because winning the election matters.  Winning the election matters because policy matters. And the Red Lines matter the most. These lines should be, but are not always blatantly obvious.  Once they are recognized (or officially acknowledged), only three things matter: direction, timing and courage.  The latter is an attribute of character.




Jay B Gaskill


When Benjamin Netanyahu told the UN Thursday that war over Iran’s atomic bomb program could only be averted by announcing a Red Line, he was restating a lesson of history that the current administration has not yet adopted.


The point of the Red Line is to prevent war.  A credible threat of military action, clearly and unambiguously given by a nation that enjoys a proven capability to carry out the threat, a threat that is also a promise, made specific in terms and without ambiguity as to time, meets the minimum threshold of deterrence.  Nothing short of that works in the real world against a determined adversary. Indeed, in a world well infected with thuggish leaders, the credibility of the good governments erodes with time.  Once Iran acquires the atomic bomb, no threats will work.


Red Lines are those consequential bridge moments that, once crossed, all hell breaks loose. The Iran nuclear issue presents a particular type – the “I’m not bluffing” Red Line directed at a miscreant or other adversary, in which the failure to heed brings down real and terrible consequences.  The police officer’s shouted, “Put down that gun!” is another example.  We do the Red Line thing because we must, because the consequences for innocent people if we do don’t, is unacceptable.


The prospect of a nuclear armed jihad is sobering enough, but that is not the only red line problem that we face.  There are three.  The other two red line moments were self-inflicted.





The Iranian atomic bomb program – the irreversible tipping point ↓





The deficit/debt crisis – the irreversible tipping point ↓





The politicization of the economy – the irreversible tipping point ↓




Conservatives and liberals tend to have different approaches to the red line issues. Conservatives historically respect boundaries (which causes them to notice the red lines), and liberals challenge boundaries (which causes them to downplay the red lines).  …But not all the time… In an almost forgotten era, both conservatives and liberals came together to defend the red lines of the day (the vital boundaries that we must defend), against the brutal march of Nazism and against Soviet communism; and they came together to dissolve one of the worst of the gray lines (the toxic, arbitrary boundaries we must overcome) of the era, that of racial segregation.


What about today’s progressive liberals and that cohort of elected conservatives caught up in their current?  For decades the congressional GOP was complicit with the liberals and others in growing the national debt, and its leaders were unwilling to bring the Iran nuke problem to a head. For decades the creeping political interference with the economy was accepted as a given by almost everyone; and for all this time, neither side of the partisan aisle actually saw (or pretended no to see) the looming red lines for what they really were.


Among the small number of elected leaders who did notice, their warnings met denial, a mixture of “‘go-along-get-along”, ridicule and procrastination. The real courage to take on the red line problems in either party was as rare as Ross Perot showing up at a pot party in Berkeley.


Each of the three Red lines I’ve identified is urgently blinking on the incoming radar.  Each represents a threatening, catastrophic collision.  The first of them must be addressed within four months, the second within six months and the third within two years.


The issue of the moment is simple to state: Who among our leaders of the moment has the character – (a) to bluntly tell the truth, and (b) to actually lead us by drawing and enforcing the Red Lines before we are overcome?





When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN last week, he did a better job sounding and acting presidential than our own president has managed to do to date.[1] Netanyahu did this by simply telling the truth.  These were some of his remarks:


 “I ask, given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons, ‘Who among you would feel safe in the Middle East? Who would be safe in Europe? Who would be safe in America? Who would be safe anywhere?’


“Shockingly, some people have begun to peddle the absurd notion that a nuclear-armed Iran would actually stabilize the Middle East.

“Yeah, right… That’s like saying a nuclear-armed al-Qaida would usher in an era of universal peace. Ladies and Gentlemen, I’ve been speaking about the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for over 15 years.”


 “At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. That’s by placing a clear red line on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Red lines don’t lead to war; red lines prevent war.

“Look at NATO’s charter: it made clear that an attack on one member country would be considered an attack on all. NATO’s red line helped keep the peace in Europe for nearly half a century.

“President Kennedy set a red line during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That red line also prevented war and helped preserve the peace for decades.

“In fact, it’s the failure to place red lines that has often invited aggression. If the Western powers had drawn clear red lines during the 1930s, I believe they would have stopped Nazi aggression and World War II might have been avoided. In 1990, if Saddam Hussein had been clearly told that his conquest of Kuwait would cross a red line, the first Gulf War might have been avoided.

“Clear red lines have also worked with Iran. Earlier this year, Iran threatened to close the Straits of Hormouz. The United States drew a clear red line and Iran backed off. Red lines could be drawn in different parts of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But to be credible, a red line must be drawn first and foremost in one vital part of their program: on Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium.”

None of this is controversial among long time members of the national security community. But Netanyahu’s measured remarks are considered shrill and insensitive among certain liberal apologists for militant Islam in general, and Iran in particular, men and women who seem to have our president’s ear at the moment.


I’ve been describing the growing danger for some time now, calling attention the as-yet-not-acknowledged likelihood that even a “modest” nuclear exchange in the Middle East (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will disrupt world food supplies, leading to widespread famine.  Therefore, isolationism no longer is defensible on any level. [2]


The experts agree that attacking Iran will be a major undertaking, and many concede (especially if we are timid and surgical about taking out the threat) that the Iranian regime might get away with temporarily closing the Straits of Hormouz in retaliation, thus spiking oil prices for a time.[3]  But the real costs (both monetary and in terms of human suffering and death) will be far greater if that rogue regime ever gets control of nuclear weapons.[4]


If we are entitled to be uncertain about our president’s resolve (and we are), then the Iranian regime is also entitled to doubt that the US will actually do anything about their nuclear program until it’s too late.


When an American administration announces (as the previous administrations have) that the US will not “tolerate” the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, adding that “all options are on the table,” this was not laying down a bright, clear, red line. However, because of Bush I’s post 911 military actions, especially deposing Saddam in Iraq, such admonitions took on genuine force.  And in fact (when coupled with a projection of power) they prompted worry in Teheran and Pyongyang; and actually led Libya’s (now dead) Muammar Gaddafi to scrap his country’s nuclear program in 2003 without a shot being fired.


But the current administration has restored a sense of policy ambiguity bordering on ambivalence. This is the result of  softening the rhetoric, promising a less militaristic policy towards Islamic aspirations, bending over backwards to avoid provoking the jihadists. And the president has continued to cloud the water further with interviews like this one;


“…in Obama’s five-minute interview, meaningfully inserted in the pre-Super Bowl television coverage watched by hundreds of millions around the world, was his admission that he did not “see any evidence” that Iran had the “intentions or capabilities” to mount a terror attack on US soil, thus contradicting last week’s congressional testimony by James Clapper, head of US intelligence community, who accused Iran of engaging in such terror plots.”


As reported in the Asia Times 2/9/12.


Mr. Obama’s vague hints at possible action against the Iranian atomic bomb program are too weak, too vague and, frankly, he seems too insincere for the power of his administration’s proclamations, with or without economic sanctions, to avert war or to prevent a nuclear bomb equipped terrorist state from emerging in the Middle East.


The chattering classes are fluttering with discussions about all the possible negative consequences that might follow strong military action aimed at delaying the Iranian nuclear juggernaut, without a thought to the dire consequences of allowing that to happen.  Had these timid minds been in charge as we contemplated entering WW II on the side of Great Britain, our surviving English brothers and sisters would now be speaking German; most of our Jewish brothers and sisters would be dead; and any residual American conscience would have been so wounded by complicity with evil that all the gains of the civil rights struggle would remain a fantasy, never achieved.




There is a famous line that was spoken with great passion by former Alan Senator Simpson (R WY), of the Simpson Bowles Commission – the Obama deficit commission that the president sidelined in 2010-11. After looking at the mountainous sovereign debt numbers, Alan Simpson said, “You can’t cut spending your way out of this hole. You can’t grow your way out of this hole and you can’t tax your way out of this hole. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.


The Simpson Bowles Commission was the unacknowledged love child of this president, disowned and ignored.  But it lives on in the “gang of six” – six US Senators now form a group committed to working on the problem in order to build a senate majority around a solution.  They are Democrats – Mark Warner (Virginia); Dick Durbin (Illinois); Kent Conrad (North Dakota), and Republicans – Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Mike Crapo (Idaho); Tom   Coburn (Oklahoma).

“Even with Congress at a nadir of bitter partisanship, the so-called Gang of Six, a bipartisan group of senators who came together last year to try to devise a way to strike $4 trillion out of federal spending in the coming decade, is still quietly at work. The group expects to have a debt-slashing plan of the $4 trillion variety ready well before the November election, in the event that spillover from Europe’s financial strains or changes in the Republican presidential race present an opportune moment to present it for consideration.”


CS Monitor –


As Jon Healey of the LA Times reminded us,


“The public has a famously low opinion of Congress, even though people tend to hold a less disparaging view of their own representatives. The last two years have been especially tough on the institution’s reputation, a response to the body’s relentless brinkmanship and paralyzing partisanship in the face of a slow economy.


“So it is with some trepidation that I throw out a little love for a handful of senators still seeking bipartisan agreement on a plan to bring the federal government back to fiscal responsibility. The core of this group is the so-called Gang of Six senators who have coalesced around the recommendations of Erskine Bowles, a Democrat who was chief of staff to President Clinton, and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), the co-chairmen of the White House’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.


“The conventional wisdom is that Congress won’t try to do anything meaningful about the federal budget gap or burgeoning debt until after the election. Then, lawmakers will have no choice but to act: Something on the order of $600 billion worth of tax increases and spending cuts are due to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. Simply canceling those hikes and cuts would cost more than $7.5 trillion over the coming decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. But letting them go into effect, the Congressional Budget Office warns, could trigger another recession.”


And, sadly, the President is not leading out on this: to the contrary. Read the Wall Street Journal account, September 11, 2012, “The True History of Simpson-Bowles” From the September 10, 2012, page A18 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, I’ve pulled these quotes:


Media elites … suggest that Simpson-Bowles would have succeeded if not for the all-powerful House Budget Chairman. This rewrites history, so allow us to remind readers what really happened to the Obama deficit commission.

Mr. Obama created the panel in February 2010, without a trace of irony, after he had raised federal spending to post-World War II highs. His political goal was to blunt attacks on his overspending, while also trying to lure Republicans into becoming tax collectors for his agenda in the name of a balanced budget. Mr. Simpson is the kind of Republican who had fallen for this in the past. So it was a pleasant surprise when Messrs. Simpson and Bowles instead endorsed a more efficient and competitive tax code. Their draft swapped fewer brackets and lower rates for fewer loopholes and “tax expenditures.”

The real reason the deficit is still so high is that Mr. Obama lacks … good-faith flexibility. It’s hard to remember now, but Washington was optimistic about Simpson-Bowles early in 2011 as a blueprint for compromise.


Simpson-Bowles did offer some useful ideas, especially on tax reform, helping to make that politically possible in 2013 if Mitt Romney wins in November.


What happens if, through timidity and lack of leadership, the country is allowed to slip over the fiscal Red Line?  Interest rates paid by the US to service its debt will become too costly to sustain. We are already paying more to service current federal borrowing than the combined budgets of homeland Security and the US Army.  The last available number is for debt service for the year 2011.  The sum for the gross interest paid was a staggering .454 trillion dollars. This is more than the budget for the US Army and Homeland security combined. And that is at comparatively low interest rates.


Debt repayment will consume much of ongoing budget while deficit spending continues, leaving a stark choice: economy-crippling tax increases or catastrophic hyperinflation or some combination of the two.


None of the choices that will face a President Romney or Obama is 2013 will easy, and few of the necessary actions will be politically marketable unless they are proposed in the context of truth-telling by a leader with character. Ross Perot has surfaced and, quite properly, he is asking for specific policy commitments from the candidates.


I have it on good authority that members of the gang of six have Candidate Romney ear, and that, if he is elected, he is prepared do to what is necessary to avert going over the fiscal cliff.  Will we hear about the details in the debates? I have no clue.






There is no meaningful democracy without a meaningful discussion among political players about the real issues and real alternatives.  And that will not happen unless and until there is a genuine likelihood that the electoral process  will be allowed to settle these disputes in either way.  There has never been a twenty years period in our history during which only the liberals or only the conservatives were consistently right on the big policy issues, except in the rare cases when a consensus was reached, as in national security during a time of threat.


There is far too little meaningful freedom in a country whenever there is a single, overarching authority over the entire commercial sector of the economy, especially one exercising an increasingly heavy hand over almost every economic decision, especially when this is done by unelected bureaucrats endowed with almost plenary day-to-day power.  Marx was partly right.  No, economics does not determine our every action (in this Marx was dead wrong), but the control of economics is the key to the control of political power.


We are terribly close to a system that is closed to all but the prevailing, accepted view. And there is little prospect of pulling back from a Tyranny Lite of this sort once a critical mass of political involvement in our daily lives is reached. If/when our political system arrives at such a saturation of the economic system that most of the electorate is actually dependent on political decision makers for their very livelihoods, we will have reached a constitutional end point. The protections of the constitution will have been breached from within, converting them to a hollow, impotent structure, honored without being actually followed.[5]  This will turn the typical election into a contest between petitioners for government favors.  It will set the stage for a semi-permanent rule by a grand alliance of political interest groups, a dependent media, and a “musical chair” elite of “benign” rulers, increasingly insulated from serious criticism or meaningful opposition.


I have written extensively about this from several angles, and I don’t want to repeat myself here.[6]


A fiscal collapse or a currency bubble collapse would be a very dangerous wakeup call, one that might cause a moment of sobriety or – more likely – awaken our worse demons.  Our constitution hangs by a slender thread.  Few students are able to understand, and fewer still able to deeply appreciate, what a  precious gift to us and to the future of creative civilization (if it survives) was the gift of limited government.  See and


The gift of limited government was also the gift of limited political interference in our daily lives.  If you have access to a memory bank for, say thirty adult years, you might ask – How far have we come to or away from that kind of freedom?


In a sane world, the next presidential election in the USA should not matter as much as it does.





Policy direction only gets you so far.

I am fully persuaded from all the evidence that Mr. Romney’s policy direction is coherent with the change of direction urgently needed to avoid disaster in each of the Red Line areas.  At least his aim is right.

Where will Obama go? Only the mystical faith of the now-disappointed moderates who initially supported Mr. Obama can sustain the fragile assumption that a second term Obama administration would finally get things right.  This is like saying that when a vessel on the sea had access to full power, its captain still chose the wrong course, but now, when the fuel is nearly spent, he will take on the difficult tasks and the right direction.

You should know that I am a democrat who grew up in a bipartisan, patriotic era when the current cohorts of progressives who now run the Democratic Party were marginalized outsiders.  Today the sensible patriots, like Joe Lieberman, have been marginalized to the point of extinction.

As a non-Mormon, I grew up among LDS boys, girls, men and women, many of who are lifelong friends.  Anyone in the business world who has dealt with Mormons knows that the stereotypical image that they tend to be almost faultlessly honest in their dealing is merely an accurate observation.

There is simply no contest on the character issue in the presidential race.  Mitt Romney is prudent, sober, honest-to-the-core, a man of his word, someone who would go a great deal out of his way to do the right thing.  I don’t need to descend into smear politics to make the observation that our incumbent president is less authentic and less reliable.

Mr. Obama may or may not come around on the three Red Lines.  If he does, he may or may not have the courage to do the right thing, assuming he is able to come to a decision in time.[7]

Vote as you will, for Hope and Change, 2.0, or for New Leadership and Hope for Change.

For my part, I just do not think Mr. Obama has earned the right to ask us to take another chance on him.




As published on The Policy Think site and the linked blogs, and by permission on other sites, this work is Copyright © 2012 by Jay B Gaskill, Attorney at Law.

As always, readers may quote with attribution, link or forward.  For everything else, please contact the author via email at < >.

[2] My recent pieces, – Nine Eleven 2012 and Nukistan and Islamageddon are posted at these links: and

[3] There is no shortage of doomsayers, but Colin Fenton, who heads commodities research at JP Morgan says that it is more likely that oil prices will remain fairly low.  See his analysis summarized in the Financial Times at this link.


[4] A fairly neutral assessment by a set of well-known experts, many like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security advisor, known doves, have reached agreement. “[A] nuclear-armed Iran would pose dangerous challenges to U.S. interests and security, as well as to the security of Israel. After reviewing many studies on this controversial question, we have come to believe that extended military strikes by the U.S. alone or in concert with Israel could destroy or severely damage the six most important known nuclear facilities in Iran, setting back Iran’s nuclear program for up to four years.” LINK –



[5] If you doubt this is a possibility, consider that our major federal regulatory agencies are endowed with the power to issue rules that have the force of criminal laws (a legislative function), to enforce them by filing charges (an executive function) and to adjudicate wrongdoing in administrative hearings without benefit of a jury (a judicial function), and to do all of this without congressional or presidential approval.  The EPA, for example, made C02 gas, something that every animal exhales, into a pollutant on the grounds that the Clean Air Act gave it that power. Under that Act, “The term ‘hazardous air pollutant’ means any air pollutant listed pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.” But the Congress did NOT list CO2 in that section. Instead, the “administrator” was allowed to make rules adding substances that present “a threat of adverse human health effects.” Don’t exhale!

[7] I have read the accounts that describe how conflicted and hesitant our president was when our intelligence services finally traced Bin Laden to his clandestine hiding place in Pakistan.  Some details may be in dispute, and others are deeply classified, but we can glean from leaked details that this was not an example of the Harry Truman style of decision making.