Search Engine Optimization (SEO) with BlogTalkRadio

Entrepreneur published a great article today, 5 Easy Ways to Improve Your Site’s Search ...

Enhancing Your BlogTalkRadio Show with Cinch

BlogTalkRadio was launched in September of 2006 as the dream of a man and his father to give ...

Celebrating Ten Years of FLYing!

In today’s speed-of-light culture, it’s not very often we get to celebrate a 10th ...

 

Profile

Michael Johns

http://michaeljohnsonfreedomandprosperity.blogspot.com/


Country: United States

Language: English

Follow on Twitter

Visit on Facebook

Visit on MySpace

Archived Blog Posts

Links

Friends (333)

  • TRP
  • Jon Hansen
  • AmericanHeroesRadio
  • FreedomsWings
  • Joel Irving
  • Prophecy Zone Radio
  • Gov20Radio
  • Young Republicans
  • Armed with Science
  • Devin Norris
  • WHWDRadio
  • Your Career Catalyst
  • The American Resolve
  • Medallion Press
  • Jim Neidner
  • Al Machek
  • Sentinel Radio
  • Patriots Heart
  • This Is Some Scene
  • Premo Mondone

Comments

Total-Deliverance

Total-Deliverance

Help us to help those with Bi-Polar, Depression and other Mental Illnesses. Hey we got a Brand New Website and blog. We need you to tell us how we can make it better. www.rcmintv.us AND we have a NEW Support blog for people with bi-polar disorder, depression, and/or ANY other mental illnesses or those that have loved ones with a mental illness. It is at: http://rcmintv.livejournal.com/ We are doing TV Broadcasts now more than Radio, that's why we are no longer doing shows here. See you there my friend.

Your Career Catalyst

Your Career Catalyst

Hi Michael, thanks for making our show one of your favorites! To your continued success.

Lady Serenity

Lady Serenity

Thank you for the gift of friendship. I will be tuning into your show as well. Much success in your endeavors

Dr. Blogstein

Dr. Blogstein

Normally, I don't like people with two first names, but for you I'm making an exception!

XStreamNetworkLive

XStreamNetworkLive

Hi Michael, thanks for listening. Hope you enjoyed the show. We invite you to stop by again and share your thoughts. T.S.E., "a sugar free approach to coaching."

WZAP Internet Radio

WZAP Internet Radio

Hey give a listen tonight at 8:00 PM EST because Mission 6 is stopping by to talk to me about there Fall Tour! Chat room will be open and you can also give a call in! Thanks ! Zach !

Wake up Call Show

Wake up Call Show

We need to hold legislatures accountable when they do wrong and break the rules and sham the people. We should not reward them. How can you reward Gov Palin in the wake of troopergate and the dishonesty and unethical behaviour. Are we looking for trouble? You would trust her to run this country when she has been found guilty of corruption while serving as Governor in the State of Alaska? How can you trust Mccain when he was one of the five senators involved in the Keaton Scandal that cost taxpayers, governemnt lots of money and cost countless of people thier retirement, and livlihood. People suffered as a result of Mccain's good old boy scandal. We should not allow thies crooks into the White house when they have already proven to us from past experiences how they have put this country last not first. How can we be so blinded by the cameras, action, the act of those who only use polished words and lies, hatred to destroy us. We have seen in the past through the civil rights era the hatred and divisiveness that was used by wicked men and now this similiar strategy being used by Mccain/Palin to instigate this same national terrorism. Just listen careful and you well see that Mccain does not fall far from that tree. Our economy is unstable and as if that wasn't enough now Mccain and Palin continues to ensue aggression and instigate anger, and fear where lunatics, radicals scream out hateful rederick to destablize our national security. Then to add insult to injury Mccain turns around and acts like he is being victimize after being called on the carpet about his hatred and irresponsibilty to host decent political campaigns. Palin cant even maintain control at these rallies nevermind this country. People are screaming out Kill Obama at these rallies like a 60s lynch mob. Instead of Mccain/Palin denounce or utilizing thier security he commend these individual and praises them during his debate tonight. What bigots, and how disgusting. These two do not represent America or country first. Palin should go back to Alaska and keep hanging out with her buddies Bill Ayers and Steve Stalle, and we will talk more about Mccains connection on the Wake Up Call show shortly. No apology should be given by Obama or Senator Lewis. We have to start acting like the head and not tail. You dont see Mccain apologizing for nothing no matter how wrong. We can talk about flag pins on one hand, call out Michelle Obama and host baby daddy talks, where is Michelle Malkin now on the Palins daughter baby daddy drama. We need to respect ourselves and stop always trying to go along get along when we know these folks are dead wrong. Why do we need thier approval? One thing I will say about Joe Biden has been dead on point and in your face with truth. More time and talk needs to be devoted towards the issues that American are facing with healthcare, outsourcing of american jobs, environment, alternative energy, etc. Mccain should be ashamed of ever speaking of himself as a hero. He does not represent America. He represents terrorist. Furthermore no more questions need to be asked about the citizenship of Obama who by the way was born in Hawaii and Mccain in the Panama Canal. Hawaii is one of our 52 by the way just like ALASKA. How about Panama Canal? Last time I checked that wasnt part of american soil. I am sure citizenship was addressed when SENATOR Obama ran for senate. Have some respect people. Those of you that cant see through Mccain/Palin probally couldnt see anything wrong with separate toilets, separate water fountains or the term "that one" as a human being was sold like cattle. Quite faking the funk if your mind and heart was really open minded and right you would see the spirit Hitler in the body of Mccain. I say keep Hitler/Mccain out of power

Wake up Call Show

Wake up Call Show

How Sarah Palin got a FREE HOME BUILT... http://news. spreadit. org:80/palin- housesarah- palin-s-house- built-for- free/ Palin House:Sarah Palin's House Built For Free? - Palin house is the drama of the day.The Palin family has a house worth $552,000 that is causing a bit of controversy. Palin house is located at Lake Lucille.It is a two-story, four bedroom, four bath home and "Todd Palin said that he built the house with friends who were contractors. "But reports claim that the house was actually built by the Spenard Builders Supply that was hired for the $12.5 million Wasilla Sports Complex.To make a long story short Palin made Spenard Builders Supply build her house in order for them to obtain the big Sports Complex contract. That's all we have for now on Palin House:Sarah Palin's House Built For Free?

Annie Rose Bio-Med

Annie Rose Bio-Med

thank for the LISTEN Michael, see you on the show tomorrow! ^j^ Annie Rose

LeonBasin

LeonBasin

Great radio show:) keep it up.

The Wandafay Show

The Wandafay Show

Michael! I alway LOVE listening to you! You have an amazing way with words! Whether it's politics, economy, healthcare what you say and how you say it-it is informative and interesting and something all Americans should be listening to! God bless you and your career! Wanda Fay Gladwill

Annie Rose Bio-Med

Annie Rose Bio-Med

I want to ADD, I meant a GREAT page and I look forward to having you as guest host of "Bio-Med Buyline" on Monday night.

Annie Rose Bio-Med

Annie Rose Bio-Med

You have a GREAT show! Let's keep getting the TRUTH out!!! Annie Rosr

KarenO

KarenO

Amen, Michael! I always learn something good when I stop by your page! Thank you, KarenO

Victoria Kelley

Victoria Kelley

Thank you so much for adding Catch Falling Stars as a favorite show. I hope that at sometime in the future we may be able to put our ideas together :) Many Blessings Victoria

Club (Acai) Radio

Club (Acai) Radio

Hi Michael, Thanks for stopping by and making our show one of your favorites. I will be keeping abreast with your show too, some very interesting titles...

Ms Fahim Herb Queen

Ms Fahim Herb Queen

Hello Michael, Good Health To You Today! Thanks for taking the time to stop by my Show..I hope you find the information to be of value to you..Feel Free to share the Shows with others..Have A Healthy, Happy,& Prosperous Day!! Ms Fahim Herb Queen

Ask MomRN Show

Ask MomRN Show

Thank you for the friend request and for adding my show to your favorites list! Please join us on Mondays at 11am CST/12pm EST/9am PST for the "Ask MomRN Show". Have a blessed day!

Life Trekking Coach

Life Trekking Coach

Thank you for coming by & listening! Your blog is very informative. Best wishes, LTC

Total-Deliverance

Total-Deliverance

Hello there. I wanted to thank you for adding me to your favorites list. That is an awesome honor and very humbling. I was also wondering if you might be interested in tossing a few of your blog articles into our blog for Total Deliverance? It is located at: http://totaldeliverance.wordpress.com/ Any who, thanks again and give me a yell if you or yours friends would be interested in that and/or sharing your personal testimony on my show sometime. God bless.

Michael Johns  

Public policy and industry leader Michael Johns, a former White House speechwriter, Heritage Foundation policy analyst and award-winning conservative writer, provides periodic analysis on global affairs, the economy and other topics. He is available as a guest on BTR shows and appears regularly on several BTR shows.

  • Archived Blog Posts

    Date / Time:

    Michael Johns' Hour-Long Radio Interview with Ryan Prucker Now Available Online

    Michael Johns' wide-ranging, hour long interview with the popular radio program, The Bottom Line with Ryan Prucker, is now available online. The audio, which can be heard or downloaded globally, is available at Episode 8 on the right column, midway down, of Bottom Line's web site at:

    http://www.bottomlineryan.com/index-3.html

    In the interview, Michael addresses the complexities of national and global Presidential communication, why President George W. Bush's liberation of Iraq will ultimately prove one of the great accomplishments of the century (despite its current unpopularity), and why several broken components of the U.S. health care system demand creative solutions, especially ensuring enhanced quality, patient-centered care and an expeditious solution to the 40 million Americans, or 13 percent of the country, who live without any health insurance.

    Michael also offers great praise to former President Ronald Reagan and his administration, stating that Reagan's domestic policies salvaged a dangerous trend toward governmental micromanagement of the U.S. economy and that Reagan's foreign and defense policies were the single most important factor in the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the 46-year long Cold War.

    The Bottom Line with Ryan Prucker is hosted by widely-respected corporate and non-profit marketing consultant Ryan Prucker, President of New York-based Imagelight Advertising & Production, LLC and Executive Producer of the television series Exploring History's Treasures and Three Course Delight.

    No Comments

  • Date / Time:

    One Iraq Option Only: Victory

    By Michael Johns

    Disturbingly, there is an emerging consensus among the Democrat-led United States Congressional leadership that the war in Iraq is "lost." The most recent example that this thesis has worked its way into official party talking points was offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, who pointedly stated last April that "...this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything...."

    Setting the obvious contrarian politics aside, could there be a more defeatist, demoralizing and undermining statement at this time?

    With approximately 3,000 lives--some of America's finest men and women--now having been sacrificed for the purpose of this mission in Iraq and another quarter million currently deployed there in harm's way, calling the Iraq War "lost" is about the greatest disservice a public official can offer both those fighting today and the legacy of the 3,000 fallen. Does this Congress really need to be reminded: Their mission is a hugely laudable one, not a lost cause.

    Make no mistake: the Iraq War has become the epicenter in the global war against terrorism, and the outcome in Iraq will ultimately be a key factor in determining whether September 11, 2001 was the beginning of the end for Al-Qaeda, or whether, conversely, it was just the beginning of an era of global terror that grows in both scope and duration.

    This fact may be lost on the Democratic leadership now conceding defeat and seeking the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but it is not lost on Al-Qaeda itself. Last weekend, on May 5th, Shaykh Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's second in command, essentially echoed Reid's sentiment, observing that the Democrat-led legislative effort to establish a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq “reflects American failure and frustration.”

    To those Americans who have not yet grasped the extent of Al-Qaeda's stake in the outcome of the Iraq War, and why the Iraq War is a large part of the war on terror, ask yourself why Zawahiri is commenting on Congressional acts in Iraq, not in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The point should be self-evident: Al-Qaeda wishes nothing more than to see Iraq left in a state of chaos, in which they can maintain a presence following an American withdrawal that would surely demonstrate that it is Al-Qaeda, not the U.S. or democratic political systems, that own the future of the Persian Gulf region. It's this simple: a win in Iraq is a significant defeat for Al-Qaeda, establishing a secure, peaceful and democratic nation in the heart of the Persian Gulf. A defeat in Iraq is a significant win for them, Al-Qaeda, likely creating another nation in chaos and ripe, as the Taliban regime once was in Afghanistan, for large levels of Al-Qaeda presence and training.

    Clearly, one hopes that is not a message Congressional Democrats want to be sending Al-Qaeda and America's enemies in the region at this juncture, and I think it would be unfair to assign any member of Congress such malicious motives. But it's already becoming very clear that driving the Republicans from the White House will first mean ensuring no 2008 Republican candidate can run on the coattails of a Bush-led victory in that nation. Putting politics ahead of national security, this nation's Democratic leadership knows all too well what the prolonged nature of the Iraq War has done to President Bush's national popularity. It has set the table for the Democrats to reclaim the Presidency in a mere 20 months.

    If it is not politics that is driving the Democratic inclination to label the Iraq War "lost", then Senator Reid's course of action should be clear: He owes this nation, its deployed troops and their families an apology because this conflict has been anything but "lost."

    Reflect for a moment on the accomplishments of U.S. forces so far in the Iraq War: the U.S. engaged Saddam Hussein diplomatically, only to find him utterly uncompromising to reasonable expectations of the U.S. and the world community. Given ample time to accommodate those expectations, the U.S. reluctantly was drawn into conflict, driving Saddam (who had governed Iraq since 1979) from power in a mere three weeks. Eight months later, in December 2003, U.S. forces captured the former Iraqi dictator--the "most wanted Iraqi"--in an underground mud shack on a ad-Dawr-based sheep farm.

    Then, as opposed to ending Saddam's life there, the former dictator was properly tried under Iraq's established legal system. While he was technically charged with just one, fairly clearly established crime--the murder of 148 Iraqi Shiites and the illegal torture and incarceration of 399 others--the charges really reflected just a sampling of Saddam's brutal, 28-year reign. He was properly convicted and sentenced.

    In Iraq, while critics of the war alleged that the war was really driven by U.S. aspirations for Iraqi oil, the U.S. sought quickly to transfer governing authority to the Iraqi people and did that in 2004. Since then, a constitution has been written and elections have been held, suggesting the promise of an emerging Iraqi democracy.

    Critics respond that these victories aside, insurgents are winning the war. Wrong again. Today, most of Iraq, thanks to U.S. and allied intervention, is secure from terrorist attacks, and some of the most historically active insurgent areas--Fallujah, Mosul, Najaf and others--have become more secure.

    These are not the accomplishments of a war that can be easily labeled "lost," and this President deserves credit for continuing to see through the ultimate and achievable objective of establishing a peaceful, stable and democratic Iraq. Can any objective onlooker really believe such a mammoth mission would be accomplished without its trials and tribulations? The entire concept of democracy functioning in the Persian Gulf was once an inconceivable concept; this President, these capable American men and women of our armed forces, combined with many brave Iraqis, are close to making it a reality. A "lost" war?

    But, in fairness, the criticism is not exclusively a partisan one. This nation does run the risk of forgetting that warm, sunny morning of September 11, 2001, at least in part because some components of our modern culture seem to want us to forget. How telling, for instance, that American television networks, seemingly all of them, have adopted policies refusing to air the attacks on the World Trade Center because it was unsettling to some Americans. Message to networks: We should be unsettled. We need to be unsettled.

    Nor is the criticism exclusively aimed at Democrats and our television media, who seem to be running from the call to action. President George W. Bush has handled this war on terror with extraordinary resolve, and one can only imagine the sense of responsibility that this President must carry as a decent man attempting to bring about a successful conclusion to this war. But even in this administration, the dead seriousness of Al-Qaeda seems periodically lost. Take, for instance, the comment of a "senior administration figure" earlier this week, who reportedly found it "stunning" that Zawahiri was following the U.S. Congress so closely to be able to comment on the Democrat-led timetable legislation. Stunning?

    There's nothing at all stunning about this observation by Zawahiri. In fact, if one looks at America's war on terror with some historical perspective, even 30 years worth, the one common denominator in America's engagement in foreign conflicts is that our enemies have closely monitored our metal and tested our political will. In this freest of nations, it's well known that American policy is driven by political temperament. That temperament has sometimes led us to war. That temperament has sometimes ended war. But the temperament of Americans does still guide the vast majority of this nation's foreign policies, and especially those that involve the loss of American life.

    It shouldn't be surprising that this fact is not lost on our enemies. Anyone with any political sophistication--and one has to count the Senate Majority Leader among this group--understands that when you undermine American political will by advancing the thesis that what we have, in exchange for the loss of these 3,000 American heroes, is a war we are "losing", you have taken the first step to making that "loss" a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    This recognition did not start with A-Qaeda. It was, for instance, well recognized by North Vietnam, whose leadership saw the U.S. anti-war movement of the early 1970s as a key component to eradicating American political will to sustain our important and warranted engagement in defending our important Asian ally, South Vietnam, in the midst of the Cold War. It also was recognized by the Kremlin, who saw U.S. and European-based "peace" movements as the quickest way to undermine former President Ronald Reagan's plan to appropriately counter Soviet global aggression through both a strengthening of American defenses and support for resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported regimes.

    In contemporary America, memories can be short, even among those who have lived this history. Take this example: Speaking to a former White House-level Clinton administration official about a year ago--someone I would call a friend, despite our differing partisan alignments--this former Clinton official told me with a straight face that the world was becoming more complex and was not as simple as it was during the Cold War when, this Clinton official told me, "everything was so black and white."

    That's interesting, I replied, because every time, during the Cold War, that conservatives like myself made the argument that we needed to be vigorous in opposing Soviet aggression, that the Soviet Union was in fact an "evil empire" and that "winning" the Cold War was both an achievable and laudable geopolitical goal, we were lectured by American liberals that the world was not so black and white, that neither the Soviet Union nor the U.S. could depict themselves as forces for good in the world, and--in their most extreme responses--that we were risking nuclear conflict, maybe even the very end of the world, in our insistence to engage, counter and defeat Soviet aggression abroad.

    In fact, to the best of my memory, I cannot recall any liberals or Democrats who described the Cold War era as "black and white" in the heat of those battles. Every Congressional vote over former President Reagan's initiatives--the deployment of space-based defense to guard the nation from nuclear attack (known as the Strategic Defense Initiative), the effort to aid anti-communist resistance movements in Angola, Nicaragua and other nations (known as the Reagan Doctrine), and the initiative to strengthen NATO's defense capabilities (which Reagan correctly labeled "peace through strength")--were opposed every step of the way by some of the same people who now label that time a simple, "black and white" era where, they now contend, we "all" wanted to prevail. But it can never be forgotten that it was resiliency in the face of liberal opposition to Reagan's initiatives that won the Cold War. With due respect to American liberals, whose patriotism I do not question, the Cold War was won over their dead bodies.

    In the midst of this 2007 political battle--with American liberals again trying to lead America's retreat, and this principled President appropriately and bravely standing his ground--can anyone doubt that, ten years from now, the war on terror will similarly be viewed as a "black and white" struggle between good and evil? Surely, it will be. But any liberal who intends to take that position cannot now be advocating a cut and run policy in Iraq.

    There also is a lesson in this Cold War history that applies to Iraq today, where again--this time as it relates to their historical views on Saddam--American liberals seem to possess a selective memory. During my stint as a White House aide to former President George H. W. Bush, I can well remember periodically leaving the Washington, D.C. area on various weekends, sometimes returning to the hometown of my youth in Pennsylvania. I would arrive proud of the efforts at the time--and most especially the extraordinary, successful effort by former President George H. W. Bush to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

    The successful liberation of Kuwait was widely welcomed by the American people, and former President Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed into the low 90s; no President since has come close to enjoying such widespread support from the American people. But in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, there was a different tone than that which existed inside the Bush White House. Beneath the popularity ratings and support for Kuwait's liberation, there was a lingering disappointment by many Americans--conservatives, moderates and liberals--that Bush, after driving Saddam's forces from Kuwait, did not push on to Baghdad and remove Saddam from power completely.

    For those of us up close at the time, it was an absurd idea. Saddam was a brutal dictator in a world filled with brutal dictators. Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm were hugely successful because they defined a clear objective and then pursued it relentlessly, strategically and precisely. What sort of chaos would follow Saddam, in a nation so characterized by bitter conflict between Saddam's Baath party, the opposition Shia (which opposed Saddam's decision not to implement traditional Islamic law, known as the Sharia), the Kurdish opposition, and other factions?

    To the great credit of former President Bush, Operation Desert Shield and then Operation Desert Storm were both clearly defined missions whose every initiative was consistent with these clearly-defined objectives, starting with Marlin Fitzwater's brilliant and inspirational February 17, 1991 comment that "the liberation of Kuwait has begun" (a statement of raw genius, both reflecting absolute confidence in the outcome of a battle not yet fought, combined with a rigid definition of what we sought to do), and continuing through the air war and the culmination of the ground war, which ended on February 27, 1991 with Kuwait's absolute liberation.

    Contrary to some conventional wisdom at the time, there was nothing cowardly about former President Bush's decision not to drive Saddam from power in 1991. Nor did his decision not to do so in any way condone Saddam's obvious disregard for human rights, which ultimately and properly earned him entry into President George W. Bush's "axis of evil."

    Rather, Operation Desert Storm was guided by a number of historical lessons, perhaps most prominent being that regime change can be a dangerous business and the U.S. can never seek to initiate, or even encourage, such change without some clear recognition of what follows a government's collapse. This astute geopolitical recognition justified former President Bush's February 1991 decision not to liberate Iraq from Saddam's autocratic reign, even though such an effort would have enjoyed initial support.

    Over ten years later and following the September 11, 2001 attacks, regime change became an imperative in Afghanistan and then, ultimately, in Iraq. They question this war now, but it was not in question in 2002, with liberal Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and many other current critics of the war voting to authorize the use of force against Saddam.

    To be sure, as some of these leading Democrats now conveniently begin to express their opposition to the Iraq War, they will contend, as most of them have already, that they authorized the use of force only because the Bush administration misled them as it related to Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

    But this criticism too is unfair, since the intelligence that led the Bush administration to that conclusion had been widely accepted not just by President Bush, but by his predecessor, Bill Clinton, too. In fact, in justifying former President Clinton's December 1998 air attacks on Baghdad, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor at the time, remarked that "(Saddam) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Then Vice President Gore also recognized the fact that Saddam was harboring WMDs, noting: "We know that (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

    What absolute audacity for Democrats to now forget these remarks and instead allege that this administration misled them into supporting a war they otherwise would have opposed. American intelligence under both Clinton and Bush indicated that WMDs were in Saddam's possession. It's quite clear that Saddam did historically use WMDs in his war against the Kurds and in the Iraqi-Iranian War. And, shocking as it may be to today's opponents of the Iraq War, it is not entirely inconceivable that Saddam was, in fact, possessing WMDs, just as both the Clinton and Bush administrations believed, when the use of force was authorized. It's certainly an extremely reasonable conclusion that Saddam's political maneuvering around United Nations-ordered inspections, which ultimately invited this war, were not designed to hide nothing.

    The issue of WMDs is now ancient history. Whether they did or did not exist, it is now very clear that the Iraq War has become a central front in the war on terrorism. This global war has many fronts, and Iraq is one of them, which is why a dangerous man like Zawahiri is paying such close attention. For Al-Qaeda, much is at stake in Iraq's outcome.

    Things will not likely get easier as the November 4, 2008 Presidential election, now 18 months away, nears. Iraq will take on a greater and greater domestic political dimension. So be it.

    President Bush's legacy, should he succeed in stabilizing a democratic and peaceful Iraq, will be substantially better appreciated years from now than it is today in the heat of this battle. And should this administration remain engaged and succeed in prevailing in Iraq, the Republican candidate in 2008 will be within bounds in asking an important "what if" question: Where would we be now in this global war on terror if we had accepted Senator Reid and the Democratic party's April 2007 declaration that the Iraq War was "lost?"

    Calling this war "lost" may now be hugely politically expedient for some, coming as it does at the height of uncertainty in this critical conflict.

    But at such a critical moment, Americans should be comforted by this President, reminded that we have been here before. We well know these dark and freightening paths of uncertainty because we have walked them before, not just cursing their darkness but pointing the way to light. Valley Forge, 1777. Normandy, 1944. The Cuban missile crisis, 1962. The Pershing II deployment, 1981. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," 1987. "The liberation of Kuwait has begun," 1991.

    Mr. Reid: The common denominators of over 200 years of American greatness may be alien to you, but they are not rooted in your defeatism.

    Yes, we know these paths too well. Facing down terror in Iraq, 2007, in a global conflict that safely may be labeled "World War III," our next step could not be more self-evident: America must prevail.

    Michael Johns, a health care executive, served previously as a White House speechwriter to President George H. W. Bush and a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation.  He can be reached at: michaeldjohns@gmail.com.

    No Comments

  • Date / Time:

    It's Still About Oil

    By Michael Johns

    For all its greatness, long-range thinking is not one of the many attributes one would assign to our nation. Our public companies often run on quarter to quarter corporate plans; our government's focus, frankly, is on the next election. In the United States House of Representatives, that's every two years. That means the campaign never stops, which also means the long-range thinking never starts.

    Examples are plentiful: America's health care policy? Not a policy you'd describe as a long-term one, given its minimal focus on disease prevention, no immediate remedy to the mounting burden placed on state governments by long-term care admissions and no apparent solution for the coming demographic tidal wave in federal and state health costs. America's entitlement programs? The only thing certain about them is that they cannot go on as they are currently. Each Congressional Budget Office study confirms the obvious absurdity of our current course, which cannot be sustained without revolutionary changes. But it's not a comfortable political topic, so the absurdity endures.

    National security and foreign policy? There are some brilliant long-range thinkers in the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, and America's think tanks. But these people rarely are making policy. Here too America's policy is defined by a reactive, not proactive, approach to the many global threats to our national interests. Difficult as it may be to imagine today, the Iraq War will one day end. What next of America's role in this world? Perhaps understandably, Iraq seems to preclude such thinking right now, largely precluding the long-range strategic thinking that is required by our government and its policy makers.

    And then there's America's energy policy, and it's generous to use the word "policy" in describing it. The transition of our nation from a manufacturing to a service economy may be nearly complete, but it's certainly not reflecting in our continued demand for oil, which is greater than ever.

    By necessity (and to its credit), the administration of George W. Bush is now looking at some long-term alternatives to oil dependence, which President Bush rightly labeled an "addiction" in his State of the Union address this past January 31. Since then, it's a credit to this administration that the phrase "alternative energy", used historically to describe ethanol and other non-oil energy resources, is losing its relevance as these energy sources become less of an "alternative" and more a part of our deliberations over America's long-term energy needs. From all of this, a long-term energy policy may yet arise.

    Yet, despite the obvious long-term need to adopt these "alternative" approaches to our nation's energy needs, it's troubling that Washington feels the necessity to trump market forces by making their production a federal mandate. If ethanol is all that its advocates represent, such a mandate would prove unnecessary because market resources would naturally flow to its development. This is especially true today, in an economy with abundant liquidity and unprecedented levels of available private capital.

    What's troubling amidst all the hype around ethanol, however, is that these market forces have historically viewed ethanol with some degree of trepidation. That may someday change completely; in fact, it appears to be changing at least partly now. But it would be more appropriate to let those market forces flow to our next energy resources, as opposed to mandating one of them--ethanol, as Congress is doing. Federal corn lobbyists: 1, America's energy interests: 0.

    The uncomfortable and too seldom discussed reality is that it is oil and natural gas that still drive this economy--and no alternative has yet emerged to supplant it. That's a fact today, and it will likely be a fact for at least several years to come. And oil is not, for two primary reasons, coming cheap.

    First, the cost of oil is influenced by some degree of geopolitical risk still factored into its pricing. On Friday, for example, Saudi Arabia arrested 172 suspected Al Qaeda and other militants. At first word of this development, oil futures soared, as the market confronted the uncertainty of the incident. By this morning, as it appeared that Saudi forces had in fact foiled a fairly large Saudi-based terrorist cell, which should prove helpful to regional stability, future prices dropped, ultimately falling lower than they were before their original escalation on Friday on the theory that Saudi Arabia may finally be getting serious about eradicating the Al Qaeda threat. Such price volatility proves only that this is a jittery market looking over it's shoulder, well aware that dangerous geopolitical threats linger.

    Second, the escalated price of oil is equally attributable to classic supply and demand forces, with supply negatively impacted by the fact the U.S., even in the midst of enhanced geopolitical uncertainties, has failed to drill sufficiently for oil on its own soil. An estimated 10 billion barrels remain undrilled on a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). And off of our own coastal waters, European and other nations drill for oil where our own Congress has prohibited such drilling by American oil companies.

    Widely unknown to most Americans, Congress also has mandated the production of roughly 30 different types of gasoline to be used in different parts of the nation, which only further increases the cost of its production. Eric Bolling, a strategic advisor to the New York Mercantile Exchange but better known as "The Admiral" on CNBC's excellent daily 8pm ET show Fast Money, predicts that gasoline is headed to $4 a gallon by July. That's the quantifiable cost of a war on terrorism that is not yet won and a Congress that seems clueless as to the extent of this nation's lingering energy crisis. Forget a long-term plan, this Congress doesn't have a short-term one.

    Our long-term energy policy, when it does emerge, will not likely be rooted in oil, as President Bush has astutely acknowledged. But the short-term bridge to this long-term policy is very much rooted in oil, and it's a short-term bridge that requires the use of our own oil resources that can be easily extracted now. Such a step would ease the supply cycle that is burdening this nation with unnecessarily escalated oil and gasoline prices and enhancing our dependency on unreliable Persian Gulf, Nigerian and other oil resources.

    Ditto the case with nuclear power, which, since Three Mile Island, modern technology has made an impressively efficient and environmentally-friendly mechanism for the delivery of energy. Even in the environmentally conscious European Union nations, this is a fact long ago recognized. But it's been 30 years since bureaucrats at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have authorized the construction of a nuclear power facility in this nation. The first one since then is now under development in New Mexico, but it's been a long time coming.

    A final point: It surely is not a pleasant thought for most Americans, especially given the prolonged nature and excessive loss of life in the Iraq conflict, but the likelihood of a potential conflict with Iran is not insignificant. High school geography taught us that the Straight of Hormuz, which divides Iran and the United Arab Emirates, is roughly 21 miles wide and twenty percent of the world's oil flows through it. In the not so improbable case that Iran ultimately attempts to close this straight (as it has periodically threatened to do), either in provocation, in retaliation, or as part of a larger geopolitical conflict, it will be important that our currently untapped U.S.-based oil reserves are available.

    With light sweet crude futures for June currently priced at roughly $65 a barrel, an ambitious short and long-term energy policy that enhances supply becomes important if, for no other reason, than the fact that, at $100 a barrel, the impact on this economy and the American people would be hugely painful. And in such a scenario, which could yet emerge this year or next, ethanol will not be this nation's salvation.

    Michael Johns, a health care executive, served previously as a White House speechwriter to President George H. W. Bush and a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation.  He can be reached at: michaeldjohns@gmail.com.

    No Comments

  • < Previous Episodes

Everything Else

Listen

 

 Participate

 

 Services and Terms

 

 Corporate

 

 BlogTalkRadio

 
BlogTalkRadio is a provider of thousands of internet talk radio shows. Our streaming and archived shows are produced by anyone that wants to be an internet radio host.
Give it a listen  and  
© 2009 BlogTalkRadio.com. All Rights Reserved.