Sentinel in Iran

The Iranian Government claimed to have shot down an incredibly sophisticated RQ-170 Sentinel drone, apparently without little to no damage.  The drone a top secret piece of military hardware and is credited with conducting surveillance of the infamous bin Laden compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan in the weeks leading up to the Seal Team Six raid of the house.  While little is known of the actual capabilities of the drone, military experts believe the drone has real-time streaming video and advanced stealth technology.  It is obviously of great importance to American surveillance missions across the globe, and the loss of the drone could prove problematic, especially if there is a successful effort to reverse-engineer components of the drone.  I'll speak more to that later.

A reasonable person would expect significant damage of a drone shot down if it was flying at 50,000 feet.  If you are suspicious of the apparently mint condition of the Sentinel, good for you.  You should be.  The Department of Defense acknowledges they "lost" a drone in the area on December 4, but the spokesman claims it was not shot down.  One could imagine an Iranian hacking scheme where they possibly took control of the craft and landed it themselves.  Of course, a hacking scheme would likely rely on the premise the Iranians knew the craft was there in the first place.  A drone of that size flying at 50,000 feet at approximately 500 miles per hour, equipped with stealth technology would presumably be nearly impossible to detect.  Which leads me to my point.  I think the American Government intentionally "lost" this craft.

The Iranians are obviously engaged in efforts to dull the edge of the American military, and one of the best ways they can accomplish that goal is to improve their own military technology.  And voila, they receive a RQ-170 Sentinel drone, and flaunt it to the world.  The American government at first gives quiet hints that the drone pictured on Iranian television is the real deal, and today President Obama asked for the Iranians to return the drone.  All the while, the Iranians are likely spending an incredible amount of resources trying to reverse engineer this craft.  They are mapping dimensions, acquiring chemical makeups of different materials, replicating electrical components, etc.  End the end, their efforts will prove futile, because the craft is a fake, at least in my view.  The phony craft was probably intentionally flown over Iran with the end purpose being the Iranians would hack into the systems to take control of the drone.  Think of it as a modern day Trojan Horse, without the little men inside of it trying to kill everyone.  Instead, the purpose is to force the Iranians to spend vast amounts of money and man power to replicate this drone that will never work as advertised.

Of course, this whole idea could be completely wrong.  The Iranians really could have the drone.  But my explanation is just as plausible, and explains why the drone seems to be largely intact, and why the American Government has been so nonchalant about recovering this valuable piece of national security.

My Choice for the Nominee is....

Through countless debates, numerous hours sifting through written and spoken positions, and through many more  hours of personal reflection, I have decided on a candidate I am going to support in the Republican field.  While this is not an endorsement in any way of the Republican Party, which is an establishment I loathe nearly as much as the Democrat Party, I have found a candidate who I think could:

1) Beat President Obama
2) Solve our Debt Crisis
3) Scale Back our War and Military Spending
4) Limit the Capacity of Big Banks to Ruin the Economy
5) Lead

I am going to support Jon Huntsman in the race to be president.  To be straightforward, Mitch Daniels (as my governor) was my first choice, but since he didn't run I had to make adjustments.  Ron Paul finished second on my list, but I will show you why I think Huntsman is a better choice for President.  I know that Huntsman is polling pretty terribly nationwide, and this "endorsement" (is it really an endorsement if you have no influence?) isn't likely to spur any additional interest into his campaign, but I suppose we all have to start somewhere.  I know in an earlier post I stated that Huntsman shouldn't be at the debates because of poor polling numbers.  I'd like to retract that statement, mainly because I think he is such a strong candidate.  I will also put the "Jon Huntsman is a liberal" myth to rest, based on Huntsman's record and campaign platform.  I think Huntsman scares the Republican establishment because of some of his common-sense ideas, and I think that's a great thing.

Let's have a brief overview of the other candidates in the field and why they will fall short against Obama.

Mitt Romney: No one knows what he actually believes.  He will say anything and everything to get elected.
Newt Gingrich: His two former wives couldn't trust him...  why should we?  His great debate performances and occasional brilliance will be offset by enormous personal baggage.  House ethics trials... etc.
Rick Perry:  He is a worse public speaker than W, and has lost much of his fundraising base after inexcusable, embarrassing gaffes.
Michelle Bachmann:  She says crazy things.....
Rick Santorum: Running as a social conservative when the number one priority to Americans is the economy is just terrible campaign strategy.
Ron Paul: He finished a close second for my choice.  Libertarians might have their day, but not in 2012.  When he talks about the Fed, people want to listen, but he's too smart for most.

With a candidate pool full of people who have numerous personal and positional flaws, Jon Huntsman stands out as the lone (besides Ron Paul) candidate who is running on a record, and not away from it.  For example, while cutting taxes and tripling the state's "rainy day fund", Utah was ranked as the nation's best managed state.  Competitive tax codes allowed Utah to lead the nation in percentage of jobs created while Huntsman was governor.  He provides market driven solutions towards job and wealth creation, not government-centric "solutions."  He plans to overhaul the tax code by lowering overall rates to 23% for top wage-earners, 14% for middle earners, and 8% for the lowest wage earners.  By eliminating tax loopholes and write-offs, this plan reduces overall rates while remains deficit-neutral.  While corporations in the United States are currently taxed among the highest in the industrialized world, Huntsman would lower that rate to 25%.  While again eliminating loopholes, multi-billion dollar companies such as GE would actually have a tax bill and contribute towards footing our massive federal funding requirements.  The simplification of the tax code, by some estimates, could save up to $400 billion alone in efficiency increases.

One of the greatest possibilities for job growth in America is through our domestic energy sector.  Just look what at the successes of North Dakota and Texas , where recent oil discoveries has led to an environment where companies are literally not able find enough workers to meet their needs.  These jobs are certainly "shovel ready" and the laborer are paid great wages.  It's a slam-dunk way to get our country out of this stubborn recession.  Increasing our access to energy sources at home lessens our need on foreign oil, namely from Middle Eastern nations who actively work against American interests.  Keeping money here in the United States keeps wealth out of the hands nations who really don't like us, and is tantamount for impeding the ability of foreign countries to influence American energy policy.  I know, some of my environmentalist friends are saying "We're going to run out of oil eventually" or "what about protecting our other resources?"  To this, I have to say that I am the proverbial "all of the above type guy".  Renewable energy sources are clearly not where they need to be in order to provide for American energy needs.  The fear of running out of carbon-based fuels is no reason not to use them now.  Our economic recovery and standard of living requires access to low-cost energy sources.  Those renewable sources may very well be the answer in 40 years, but not now.  Of course, that isn't to stay we shouldn't stop our investment in the technology and future developments, but we should stop federal subsidies in deployments of these technologies in the near term.  They simply aren't cost effective.  Markets do a remarkably good job at determining prices, and America can not maximize its success while subsidizing multiple energy sources.  While these subsidies, in my view, need to end, so too must the regulations that prevent us from using our energy sources.  In basic "supply and demand" terms, the regulations create an artificial shortage of supply by limiting our access to the resources, thus artificially inflating prices.  Anyway, enough of my speak, back to Huntsman.

While Jon Huntsman has had obvious success as a Governor, he has also been named the U.S. Ambassador to Singapore (the youngest U.S. Ambassador in nearly 100 years) and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for trade development, commerce for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.  And, while serving as Governor of Utah, he answered President Obama's call to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to China, arguably the most important ambassadorship in our day.  Huntsman has demonstrated he can put country ahead of politics, a virtue oftentimes lacking in Washington, D.C.  His experiences in the international relations arena is great indication he can handle the pressures of the Oval Office as required by the Commander-in-Chief.  He can use those negotiating skills to avoid future military engagements, except for when absolutely necessary. My generation has taken more than its fair share in hits from current military engagements in terms of lives and treasure lost.  I'm certainly not keen on seeing the next generation of Americans suffering from unnecessary interventions.  Huntsman also has plans reorganize our armed forces, something I'd like additional clarification upon.  In a dream world, our federal budget obligation to the Pentagon will lightened by prioritizing more divisions like "Seal Team 6", where small, fast, stealthy military groups can be used to take out priority targets if need be, without the risk of occupying a nation for 10 years with hundreds of thousands of troops.  While this reorganization will prioritize efficiency over excesses, our military will still remain the strongest in the world, allowing for continued security and the ability to promote American ideals.

The economic crisis we are still struggling with today was created by a confluence of things, but namely because of the housing bust.  Once the housing bubble popped, so did big banks, and we feel the effects of it today.  One of the many reasons the impact has had such a long-lasting effect is because large financial institutions hold a disproportionate amount of wealth.  Lehman Brothers went prior to its collapse, the firm had approximately $275 billion dollars under its management.  Currently, several of the large banking institutions hold a higher dollar amount than Lehman did at its peak.  If one of these banks fail today, the federal government will again have to step in for a bail out, or risk another prolonged economic meltdown.  If an institution can have such a devastating effect on the economy, it simply should not be allowed to exist.  Huntsman has pledged to end this madness by stating on numerous occasions, "Too big to fail means too big to exist."  The risk placed on the shoulders of the American people outweighs the right of these companies to exist in a free market arena.  This is one area where the federal government should have the authority to limit the ceiling on wealth for these mega-banks, to make sure potential future collapses do not again ruin the global economy.

Another reason I support Jon Huntsman is because he has lived an inspiring American Dream.  A high school dropout (who later received his G.E.D.), Huntsman spent his latter teenage years playing in a rock band.  Once those dreams lost their luster, he received a degree from Pennsylvania University.  Out of college he went on a two year mission trip and later worked for both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in capacities described earlier.  While ambassador, Huntsman oftentimes chose to forgo traditional motorcades and instead preferred to rides his bike from place to place, which gave him the opportunity to meet new people.  He served as as the Chairman of the Huntsman Corporation, a chemical company with current revenues of approximately 8 billion dollars.  That company currently employs approximately 12,000 employees.  Huntsman has a terrific family with 7 children.  Just think of all the jobs already created for the additional paparazzi needed to cover them!

So lets recap the reasons why Huntsman should be the nominee:
1.  He can beat Obama.  By pushing conservative principles and by lacking the baggage or kookiness of his fellow candidates, Huntsman can run an effective campaign of being the anti-Obama.  Private corporation experience, international relations experience, gubernatorial experience.  JOB CREATING EXPERIENCE!!  Our president has done a very good job at letting people know he did not create the financial crisis, but he has been far less vocal on acknowledging his mismanagement of it.  Huntsman is a proven leader, a quality our current president so obviously lacks. 
2. See the above.