About Steve Chabot

Listening to President Obama’s State of the Union Address, one might well conclude that he has been one of the greatest foreign policy presidents in U.S. history. Yes, Obama gave the go-ahead to take out Osama bin Laden, and for that he deserves credit. But wouldn’t a President McCain or a President Romney have made the same decision under the same circumstances?

Coming into office, the cornerstone of President Obama’s foreign policy was “engagement” – reaching out to our enemies (Iran) and attempting to reason with them. This cozying up to our enemies was, however, unfortunately accompanied by a snubbing of our traditional allies (Israel and Great Britain).

President Obama has publicly distanced himself from Israel, America’s steadfast ally, and the Middle East’s only well established democracy. In fact, the Obama cold-shoulder was so bad that a Jerusalem Post poll found that at one point only 6% of Israelis believed the Obama Administration to be pro-Israel.

Then he moved on to the the dissing of the UK, our strongest ally through two world wars and into the present day. President Obama refused five requests for personal meetings with then Prime Minister Gordon Brown, refused to call our traditional partnership with the UK a “special relationship,” (the phrase used to describe our alliance since Churchill), and even sent back a bust of Winston Churchill that had been on display in the Oval Office as a sign of solidarity since 9/11.

And what good has come from the Obama olive branch extended to Iran? Absolutely nothing. Worse than nothing. Despite numerous overtures to the Mullahs in Iran, they are closer to nuclear weapons capabilities than ever. And when the Iranian tyrants stole the election in 2009, and thousands of innocent protesters were being brutalized, raped, and murdered in the streets, Obama refused to lift a finger in support. In fact, Iran’s belief that the U.S. under Barack Obama has become a paper tiger is now so ingrained that Iran now routinely threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, thus driving up the world price of oil and hurting the U.S. economy; they were behind a plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in our nation’s capitol, Washington, D.C.; and most disturbingly, top intelligence officials announced just yesterday that Iran is increasingly willing to attack the United States on U.S. soil, something which until recently would have been unimaginable. So much for reaching out to Iran.

Other examples of this Administration’s foreign policy failures around the globe abound: As a sop to Russia, Obama abandoned missile defense sites that had been promised to our allies Poland and the Czech Republic. Bowing to Chinese pressure, Obama became the first president in 20 years to refuse to meet with Tibet’s Dalai Lama. And speaking of bowing, let’s not forget that this president literally bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.

The Administration’s mishandling of Egypt has been stunning. After initially wavering ,waffling, and stumbling, Obama finally called for President Mubarak’s ouster. We’re now witnessing a previously pro-American Egypt turning into a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egypt where Coptic Christians are being murdered and their churches targeted left and right.

Moving on to Syria. It took the slaughter of nearly 2,000 civilians before the Obama Administration finally gave up on Bashar al Assad, whom the Administration had once labeled a “reformer”!

In Iraq, President Obama is jeopardizing everything that our troops have fought so hard to achieve, withdrawing in such a way as to dangerously expand Iran’s influence, to the detriment of the U.S., our allies, and the Iraqis themselves. His rash exit has resulted in renewed sectarian violence and with it risks thousands of innocent lives.

The list of setbacks goes on and on: Afghanistan is showing signs of heading south as we run for the door under the cover of talks with the Taliban; Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua are facilitating Iranian influence in the Western Hemisphere; the Mexican drug wars continue to spiral out of control, endangering American tourists and ordinary U.S. citizens along our border with Mexico; Islamic terrorists are making significant gains in Somalia, and in Nigeria where Christians are being slaughtered merely because they are Christians; and, despite the President’s announcement of a shifting focus to security in Southeast Asia, Chinese military expansion is being met with huge U.S. defense cuts.

Our country cannot afford another four years of the Obama Administration’s failure on the international stage.

My fellow Americans, the State of the Union is, well, honestly, still pretty bad. Some of my supporters are still trying to blame everything on bad old George Bush, and for quite a while it worked, but not anymore. Hey, I’ve been President for three years now, and much as I hate to admit it, at some point I guess I have to take some responsibility here.

After all, I AM President. I wanted the job. And for the first two years of my Presidency, we controlled everything – the House, the Senate and the Presidency. And we got what we wanted. That Stimulus package was huge — $800 billion. Unfortunately, it didn’t work. Fortunately, I’ve got friendly liberal economists like Paul Krugman who still pedal the idea that the problem with the Stimulus wasn’t that we spent too much, but that it should have been even bigger. Just between you and me, I know that’s a lot of bunk, but it’s nice to have them out there saying it.

And then there’s health care. Here’s where we really screwed up. With the lousy economy, I had said I’d focus on it like a laser beam. Instead I got distracted on my dream, and the dream of every liberal here in Washington for years, to have government run everybody’s health care. We used every trick in the book, but we got it passed. We figured that people would eventually grow to love it – but they haven’t. In fact, they hate it more now than they did when we passed it. If I can beat Mitt or Newt or whoever the Republicans pick, then I’ve got a chance of making my health care takeover permanent. But if I lose, and the Republicans control Congress, they’ll get rid of it in a heartbeat. So the stakes are really big this year.

Enough about health care. Let’s talk about spending. Well I guess health care is about spending, but I digress. Anyway, it was brought to my attention that by pure coincidence, today, the day I’m giving my State of the Union address, is the 1,000th day since the Senate last passed a budget – that’s three years! Now they’re supposed to pass a budget every year, but my close political ally, Harry Reid, who runs the place, has decided that a budget would be too restrictive on their spending habits, so they just ignore this responsibility. Those Republicans in the House, fools, have insisted on passing a budget every year. That’s kept me from spending even more than I have. And their most recent budget, the so-called Ryan Budget, which actually would have addressed some of Medicare’s challenges, gave me and my political allies the opportunity to run a TV ad with a Paul Ryan look-alike actor pushing a little old lady over a cliff. Subtle, huh!

Speaking of those Republicans in the House, this would be a good opportunity to share with you my strategy for winning re-election this year, and therefore being able to come back and give you the State of the Union address next year. Although I think I share a lot of qualities with another of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, (we’re both from Illinois after all), I’m going to be Harry Truman this year. I intend to run against a do-nothing Congress. Yeah, I know that John Boehner’s House has passed 30 different jobs bills over the last year, none of which has been taken up by my buddy Harry Reid’s Senate, I think it just might work. Let’s face it, very few people differentiate between the House and the Senate – it’s just Congress, and everybody hates Congress.

In conclusion, hope and change. No, wait. That’s what I used last campaign. No one’s going to buy that one again. How about “Let’s do it for the children.” No, that’s been used before too. How about “If I’m elected, I’ll close Guantanamo Bay.” No…

The House of Representatives met yesterday for the first time this year. It’s probably a good time to ask, “What can we expect to be accomplished in Washington this year?” Much as I hate to say it, the honest answer is probably – not much.

Why is that? First of all, the United States Senate is still under the control of – Harry Reid. This is the same Harry Reid who said we couldn’t possibly cut federal spending on such critical programs as a Cowboy Poetry Festival in his home state of Nevada. This is the same Harry Reid who had to apologize for making racist remarks about then-candidate Barack Obama. And this is the same Harry Reid who just a few days ago basically declared that “Tea Party extremism” is why Washington can’t get anything constructive done.

Another obvious roadblock to accomplishing anything worthwhile over the next year is the current occupant of the White House, Barack Obama. Now it might seem logical that it would be in Obama’s political best interest to work with Congress to accomplish something for the American people this year, as he’s actually up for re-election. However, he’s made it quite clear that he is totally in campaign mode, and rather than work WITH Congress, his intention is to run AGAINST Congress.

Harry Truman did it back in 1948, running against an alleged “Do Nothing Congress.” There is of course one huge difference between back then and the current situation. Today, rather than a Do Nothing Congress, we have a Do Nothing Harry Reid-led Senate.

The FACT is that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has passed bill after bill which would have cut spending, reduced the size of government, eliminated regulations, and gone a long way towards getting the economy moving again and getting Americans back to work, only to be blocked by Harry Reid’s Democratic-controlled Senate.

So what’s the answer? I would submit that it is absolutely critical that we break obstructionist Harry Reid’s stranglehold on the Senate by electing a minimum of 4 new Republican Senators this year, thus taking the Democrats out of the majority and Harry Reid out of running the place. Secondly, and equally important, is holding the House (and the First Congressional District of Ohio will be part of that effort.) And finally, and perhaps most importantly, Barack Obama must not be re-elected to a second term.

So there you have it. And even though there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington this year about everything from millionaires and billionaires allegedly not paying their fair share of taxes, to who wants to cut Medicare and Social Security and who wants to save them, and whether Congress should pass President Obama’s latest jobs plan or whether it would actually be nothing more than Stimulus II, the direction of this country will be determined by the decision the American people make this November.

It’s never been more important that they get it right.

The Obama Administration just announced what I believe could be the most irresponsible and dangerous thing they’ve done thus far in their three years in power. Obama intends to slash U.S. military troop levels by 15% - the Army from 570,000 to 490,000 and the Marines from 202,000 to 175,000. Total cuts to the U.S. defense budget under Obama’s plan is approximately a half trillion dollars, and if you add the potential automatic $600 billion in cuts coming due to the Administration and the Super Committee’s failure to come to an agreement a few months back, this could result in a slashing of our military by over a trillion dollars.

Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Buck McKeon, strongly criticized the proposal saying, “This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs.” He’s right.

Perhaps the most troubling of Obama’s proposed changes in our military is the abandonment of the long-held policy (under both Democratic and Republican Administration’s) that the U.S. would always be capable of fighting two wars on two fronts at the same time. If Obama’s plan is adopted – no more. Result – we’re less secure.

Obama’s one warfront plan presupposes that we can predict what the future will bring, what our enemies will do, who they will be, and how virtually everything will unfold. If history teaches us anything, it’s that the future is impossible to predict. We must hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. We must have the military power and flexibility to deal with any realistic eventuality. A lot of American lives depend on it.

Obama is repeating the mistakes of the past. After other major military conflicts, World War I, World War II, and Vietnam, the U.S. cut military spending, and then found it necessary to rebuild our military capabilities when our security was again threatened, often at great cost in blood and treasure.

A few other elements of the Obama plan. We will de-emphasize our involvement in the ever-volatile Middle East to Southeast Asia, and to China in particular. Now I would agree that ramping up our ability to deal with China is important. Especially since most experts predict that China will likely be our chief rival over the next century. But we must remain engaged in the Middle East, or Iran will soon have nuclear weapons, Iraq will fall under Iran’s sphere of influence and all our gains there will be lost, Egypt will end up a militant Jihadist state and war with Israel will be not just a possibility but a likelihood, and the chaos and instability in the Middle East will result in oil prices shooting through the roof and pushing the world economy (and the U.S.’s) into further recession, or God-forbid, into depression.

One area where I would agree, at least in part, with Obama’s plan, is reducing our military forces in Europe. Our European NATO allies have for far too long been allowed to neglect their own defense budgets, and become too dependent on U.S. military forces to carry the load. Enough’s enough. This is one area we could save some U.S. tax dollars. I intend to support the Administration on this point.

Let me be clear. My opposition to what I and many others see as a hollowing out of our military does not mean that the Defense Department should be considered a sacred cow. It, like all departments and agencies of the federal government, deserves aggressive scrutiny to determine where waste, fraud, abuse and pork can be eliminated without jeopardizing our security (remember the $600 hammers?)

In conclusion, we must not permit this ill-conceived plan to move forward, and reduce our ability to project U.S. military power around the world. If we do, it will make the world, and us, less safe.

Well the much anticipated Iowa Caucus (first in the nation) is now history. So what does it all mean?

Let me preface my comments with this statement: I have always made it my practice to stay out of primaries, and focus my attention on supporting the Republican nominee (whether at the local level or at the Presidential level) in the general election.

I am a believer in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican candidate.” Compliance with this commandment was in short supply in Iowa. Millions and millions of dollars which could have been used to critique the flaws in President Obama’s policies on the economy, spending, taxes, jobs, health care, trade, and foreign policy, were instead spent to tear down fellow Republican candidates – particularly Newt Gingrich.

There’s an argument to be made that such negative advertising toughens the ultimate Republican nominee and better prepares him (or her) for the billion dollar negative campaign coming down the pike courtesy of the Obama campaign.

I don’t buy it. I think it’s more likely the Republican candidate comes out of the primary process wounded and bleeding, and Obama remains unscathed. I hope I’m wrong. I do believe however, that President Obama’s policies have been so flawed in so many ways that he is vulnerable, no matter who the Republican nominee is.

Now let’s get to the results. Mitt Romney squeaked to a victory over Rick Santorum by just eight votes (30,015 to 30,007). Ron Paul came in third with 21% (to Romney and Santorum’s 25%.) Newt came in fourth with 13%. Perry got 10%, Bachmann 5%, and John Huntsman 1% (he didn’t campaign in Iowa, preferring to begin his campaign in the more favorable-for-him New Hampshire.)

In my view, the two big winners are Romney and Santorum. Romney because, even though close, it’s a win, and in a state he really hadn’t campaigned hard in until the last six weeks or so. And Santorum because he will now likely be perceived as the conservative alternative to Romney, assuming that the other candidates will continue to fade and their votes shift to Santorum rather than to Romney.

Over the last two or three months or so, when people would ask me who I thought would be the Republican nominee, I’d often (mostly kiddingly) say probably Rick Santorum because (other than Huntsman), he’s the only candidate who’d not been in the lead so far. And this has been one of the more interesting phenomena this campaign cycle. Over the last year (besides Mitt Romney who most political pundits consider the presumptive frontrunner), we’ve seen Sarah Palin, then Donald Trump at the top of the national polls (neither of whom even got into the race.) Then Michele Bachmann was on top, until she won the Iowa Straw Poll in August; Rick Perry got in and shot to the top – until he got into the debates. Herman Cain then pushed Perry aside, had his troubles, and dropped out of the race altogether. Newt moved into the lead, until Romney, the Republican establishment, and the press unloaded on him.

Now it’s Rick Santorum’s turn. To his credit, without a lot of money, name recognition, or seemingly hope, Santorum essentially camped out in Iowa for the last year, and worked the state – hard. He personally campaigned in all 99 counties in Iowa. We saw the results last night when he came within eight votes of beating the presumptive frontrunner Mitt Romney.

With the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary only a week away (Iowa was a caucus) what are the things to watch for? Without picking a winner (sorry) here’s the way I see it. Newt is ticked – at Romney. Newt believed that Romney, and especially Romney’s super PACs, were primarily responsible for his demise. Millions and millions of dollars in negative ads were targeted at Newt, and they were effective, although Newt feels strongly that they were inaccurate, unfair, and below-the-belt. Newt’s wrath will especially be in evidence in the upcoming debates.

My guess is Santorum, who hasn’t really been anyone’s target up to this point, will be on the receiving end of the pro-Romney forces now. Although Santorum served two terms (twelve years) in the Senate, he’s not all that well known to most voters. Having served in a swing, relatively moderate state, Pennsylvania, I would expect his support for “earmarks” to be a principal point of attack.

And finally, John Huntsman. Even though he only got 1% of the vote last night in Iowa, like Santorum did in Iowa, John Huntsman camped out in New Hampshire. He hopes to do well enough there to put himself on the map, and propel himself as a credible alternative to Mitt Romney in the upcoming primaries and caucuses. I doubt whether this will ultimately be successful, but hey, he didn’t ask me.

In conclusion, although Iowa last night was close and exciting, and New Hampshire and the upcoming contests could be quite a spectacle, I really cringe at all the negative ads, sniping, and bad blood between the Republican candidates. I’d much prefer seeing a thoughtful discussion among the Republican presidential candidates as to how they can best promote an alternative strategy to the failed policies of the Obama Administration. How they can best get the economy moving again, and get Americans back to work.

Maybe I’m asking too much, but I don’t think so.

As 2011 winds down, I’d like to take the time to say to you, my faithful blog readers, thank you. First, thank you for giving me the opportunity to once again represent the people of the First Congressional District of Ohio in Congress. Although the job at times can be frustrating, particularly dealing with the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid, I get tremendous satisfaction helping the people of our district in constituent matters with the federal government, and fighting to move the country in a more conservative direction – restrained spending, less regulation, and lower taxes (although our successes have been thus far admittedly modest at best.)

And thank you for taking the time to read this blog each week, or as often as your busy life allows. I’ve been doing this weekly blog for nearly three years now, and by my estimate we’ve therefore done about 150 of them. I write them out myself each week, and they’re posted online – usually by 11:45 a.m. every Wednesday.

Of course the blog’s purpose is to give you, the reader, one more source of insight into what’s going on in Washington, and on the political scene overall, which might affect our community, the nation, the world, and therefore you. I welcome your comments and advice anytime on anything.

Now to shift gears. We are only three days away from the end of the year, Saturday, December 31st. This is the halfway point for the two year Congressional election cycle. Each candidate for Congress must report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) how much they’ve raised thus far for their campaign. Both parties look very closely for signs of weakness in deciding who they will target in the next election.

I know you know what’s coming next. Please help – PLEEEEEASE! You can make a secure online contribution by clicking here or you can contribute by sending a check to Chabot for Congress, 3030 Harrison Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45211. Thank you in advance for your generosity.

One other thing I’d like to mention. The Ohio state legislature just completed the redistricting process and the new congressional districts are now final. I will have approximately 720,000 people in my new district, and approximately one third of those people (about a quarter of a million people) will be new to the district. So I have my work cut out getting to know these new voters, and getting them to know me. Your generous contribution will go toward that effort, as well as toward other necessary campaign things.

(The new communities coming into the First Congressional District are: Sharonville, Symmes Township, Montgomery, Indian Hill, part of Sycamore Township, and all of Warren County.)

I wish you and your family a Happy New Year!

Some years back, before making my first trip to Korea, I received a briefing by the CIA at their headquarters in Langley, Virginia. One of the things that I was shown, which was classified at the time but is no longer classified (so I can talk about it now) was a photograph taken by one of our spy satellites over Korea. The photo was taken at night, and South Korea was lit up like a Christmas tree, especially over cities like Seoul. It was very easy to tell North Korea from South Korea – because North Korea, unlike the South, was dark as a piece of coal.

Why? It’s the difference between civilization, and the lack thereof. South Korea is democratic, and free, and prosperous. It is one of the four so-called Asian “tiger” economies. For the most part, life there is good.

North Korea, communist, totalitarian, and un-free is an economic and human basket case. Unless you are a member of the military, or the small elite ruling class, life for all intents and purposes is a living hell (except that it’s usually cold.)

It wasn’t always like this. Before Korea split into the communist North and the capitalist South (around 1950) North and South were at about parity, and the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) was essentially the same. In fact, the North of 1950 actually had slightly more of an industrial base than the South. Today, 60 years later, the per capita GDP for South Korea is about $30,000 per year. For North Korea it is less than $2,000 per year per capita. 1/15th as well off.

Why? Because whereas the South is a market based, free enterprise, capitalist democracy, the North has been ruled for the last 60 years by one of the most repressive totalitarian regimes on earth. First by dictator Kim Il Sung until 1994, then by his son Kim Jong Il who ruled with an iron fist until he died last week, and next most likely by Kim Jong Il’s 27-year-old untested, inexperienced son Kim Jong Eun.

Before we get to the grandson and what his reign might look like, let’s make a quick review of the reigns of his father and grandfather. I think it’s quite fair to say that they were both despicable, murdererous, evil, soulless, tyrannical, depraved, corrupt, loathsome, malevolent, repugnant, wicked, vicious, and vile so-called leaders of a so-called country.

Other than the military and the upper echelon political crony class who kept this family of vipers in power, the rest of North Korea’s citizens were basically enslaved. It was the harshest of police states – Saddam Hussein’s Iraq seemed liberal (in the classic sense) by comparison. Millions of people literally starved to death due to state-enforced, insane economic and agricultural policies, while the military and the cronies feasted.

A gulag, or a system of concentration camps, controlled, tortured, and executed tens of thousands every year. The bottom line is – North Korea has become a hell on earth.

So what can be expected of this third generation in the form of 27-year-old Kim Jong Eun? No one knows for sure, but I fear that the expression “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” is what we are likely to get. And all the sanctions (or enticements of food aid) by the United States and our allies, and all the U.N. resolutions (with strong letters to follow) aren’t likely to have much impact on how North Korea will be ruled or how its miserable people will be enslaved. Only China, North Korea’s de-facto sponsor and mentor, could have any realistic chance of changing North Korea’s behavior – if it chose to act, and unless China believes it is in China’s own best interest to intervene, it won’t.

So unfortunately, North Korea’s past is likely to be its future.

(If you’d like to read a powerful first-hand account of a man who suffered through the horrors of the North Korean gulag, escaped, and thus lived to tell the story, I’d highly recommend a book entitled The Aquariums of Pyongyang by Kang Chol-Hwan.)