Romney Didn’t Make the Sale

Larry Kudlow, Finance guru and TV host on CNBC, says so!

You have probably seen Larry Kudlow on television. He is a well educated and well spoken finance expert that is hard to ignore. He is the opposite of Jim Cramer. Mr. Kudlow provides his own opinion along with interviews with many really smart guests. Kudlow’s doubts are my doubts.

In summary here is the gist of his post on townhall.com.

Did Mitt Romney make the economic sale at the Republican National Convention? Did he convince people who are living at the margin or unemployed and discouraged that he has the answers to the economy? Frankly, I don’t think so.

he (Mitt Romney) did not talk about his 20 percent across-the-board personal tax cut plan that would help the middle class enormously. He never mentioned it, and he went into no detail on the business tax cut plan.

He talked about a jobs tour. I frankly have no idea what a “jobs tour” is.

I didn’t hear anything new. I didn’t hear anything specific, and it troubles me.

ON BIG BUSINESS: I think he needs to be more specific. It’s not about big business — it’s really about small business.

Special Income Tax Rates for the Very Wealthy

Everyone should be taxed at the same rate. There should be no deductions or allowances for any thing!

Steve Rattner, President Barack Obama’s former car czar, appeared on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS a few week ago. (Steven Rattner is Chairman of Willett Advisors LLC, the investment arm for New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s personal and philanthropic assets.) Mr. Rattner said that one of the reasons Mitt Romney won’t release his income tax returns is his legal but highly unusual asset protection.

Romney has a $100 million IRA and off shore accounts that avoid US income tax. Rattner pointed out that many rich people pay income tax at the 35% rate while there is a group that pay at the much lower rates. Rattner said he didn’t think the American people would be too happy with this situation. I certainly am not happy!

There is always going to be a very rich part of this society. I don’t know the reason but it was confirmed by Vilfredo Pareto (15 July 1848 – 19 August 1923). He made several important contributions to economics, particularly in the study of income distribution and in the analysis of individuals’ choices. The Pareto principle was named after him and built on observations of his such as that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. Today in the USA 85% of America’s wealth is owned by 20% of the population (quite close to Pareto’s 80-20 theory).

What I do not accept is the idea that the wealthiest among us pay 15% in income taxes.

This is nothing about Jealously. This is about fairness.

There is no question that rich people spend more money on stuff. The question is: Should rich people whose earnings are the result of investments be taxed on their income at 15% (or less if Paul Ryan has his way) than people whose earnings are based upon a salary?

Personally I believe everyone should pay income taxes at the same graduated rate no matter what the source of the income. No one should be given any allowances or deductions for ANYTHING. You want a wife, more kids – go for it – just don’t expect any help from the government.

Bill Kristol, Fox News Pundit, Questions Tax Cut for the Wealthy

Back in 2001 and 2003 President George W. Bush pushed his income tax reduction laws through Congress. The theory behind those tax reductions was the government was running a surplus and the economy needed a boost. What was the result? Higher net income for business and the loss of American jobs to China, India, and other nations. The result is that business leaders tell the American people we are no longer a manufacturing society, we are now a service society. Those services translate to lower paying jobs for the middle class. What middle class? Those jobs are the jobs of the poor!

Even Bill Kristol is now questioning the idea of even lower taxes for business.

By Igor Volsky of Think Progress on Aug 11, 2012 at 3:42 pm

Bill Kristol, who had predicted that Mitt Romney would name Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running-mate, expressed some concern Saturday morning that Republicans may have a hard time defending the GOP budget, which disproportionately cuts taxes for the rich.

“It’s the tax cuts for the wealthy, where Republicans have not done a particularly good job of defending it and I think you’ll see Democratic attacks focus on that side of the equation,” he said. The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore agreed, but noted, “who’s better to defend those policies that Paul is, I mean he knows this stuff better than anyone.”

Paul Ryan’s infamous budget — which Romney embraced — replaces “the current tax structure with two brackets — 25 percent and 10 percent — and cut the top rate from 35 percent.” Federal tax collections would fall “by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade” as a result. To avoid increasing the national debt, the budget proposes massive cuts in social programs and “special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code.”

But 62 percent of the savings would come from programs that benefit the lower- and middle-classes, who would also experience a tax increase. That’s because while Ryan “would extend the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of this year, he would not extend President Obama’s tax cuts for those with the lowest incomes, which will expire at the same time.” Households “earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually.”

Twelve States Will Determine the Next President of the U.S.A.

While twelve states determine the winner of the presidency, the choice of the majority can and has been overruled by a silly, stupid election system.

As we all know there is no national direct election for president of the United States. Instead the constitution requires electors to vote for the president. The system has evolved into a popular vote in each state. The winner of each state determines that the state’s total electors vote for the winning candidate. Thus, if a majority of California voters select Obama in the next election then the total number of electors (the sum equals the congressman and senators) are given entirely to Obama. Whichever candidate wins 270 electors is the winner. The winner of the most electors can lose the popular vote as George W. Bush did in the 2000 election.

Since pollsters can tell the candidates what the likely outcome is for each state, the candidates will focus their campaigning on those states that they are narrowly losing.

Thus there are just 12 states that will most likely determine who will win the November election. Most polls indicate that the determining states are North Carolina (15), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), Virginia (13), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Wisconsin (10), New Hampshire (4), and Colorado (9).

The election process is inequitable to the majority of the people since the four largest population centers in the nation are not in any of those states.

Why the IOC will never memorialize the ’72 Munich massacre

Posted by David Bancroft

Why the IOC will never memorialize the ’72 Munich massacre

By Guri Weinberg

Published July 27, 2012

FoxNews.com

Recently, new information about the Munich Massacre at the 1972 Olympic Games was released by German police as a result of pressure from German investigative reporters. It was reported that the “Black September” terrorists were helped by a Nazi group in Germany to get fake IDs, weapons and access to the Olympic Village.

This was not too shocking, as the head of the IOC in 1972 was Avery Brundage, a Nazi sympathizer and anti-Semite. His protege, Juan Samaranch, eventually served the second longest IOC term as president, but his support of Nazis and the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco was kept a dirty secret. Most IOC members knew the truth but stayed silent because he organized a regal lifestyle for them — with money diverted from sport.

‘I want all of you to lose your jobs and be replaced by real Olympians who care about the athletes and believe in the Olympic charter.’

Another interesting fact is that Abu Iyad, one of the co-founders of the PLO, has said publicly that the reason “Black September” chose the 1972 Olympics as the stage for their hostage plot was because the PLO’s request to the IOC for inclusion of the Palestinian delegation at the Olympic Games was completely ignored. This snub from the IOC came at a time when tension was at a boiling point in the Middle East. Yet, having incited the PLO, the IOC denied the Israeli government’s request for security for the athletes.

In 1996, I, along with other Munich orphans and three of the widows, were invited for the first time to the Olympic Games in Atlanta. Before the Opening Ceremony, we met with Alex Gilady. Gilady has been a member of the IOC’s Radio and Television Commission since 1984 and has been the senior vice president of NBC Sports since 1996.

I have known Mr. Gilady since I was a kid; in fact, I grew up with his daughter. He had been supportive in the past regarding our plea for a moment of silence during the Opening Ceremonies, so we arrived with high hopes. Gilady informed us that a moment of silence was not possible because if the IOC had a moment of silence for the Israeli athletes, they would also have to do the same for the Palestinians who died at the Olympics in 1972.

My mother said, “But no Palestinian athletes died.”

Gilady responded, “Well, there were Palestinians who died at the 1972 Olympics.”

I heard one of the widows say to Gilady, “Are you equating the murder of my husband to the terrorists that killed him?”

Silence.

Then Ilana Romano burst out with a cry that has haunted me to this day. She screamed at Gilady, “How DARE you! You KNOW what they did to my husband! They let him lay there for hours, dying slowly, and then finished him off by castrating him and shoving it in his mouth, ALEX!”

I looked at Gilady’s face as he sat there, stone cold with no emotion. This man knew these athletes personally. This man led the Israeli media delegation at the 1972 Olympics and saw this atrocity first hand. This man saw my father’s dead, naked body thrown out front of the Olympic Village for all the world to see. Without a hint of empathy, Gilady excused himself from our meeting.

That’s when I understood that the IOC wasn’t turning us down because of their resistance to :politics.” Rather, it was due to the specific politics the IOC apparently still embraces. Based on its history of Nazi support, greed and the blood on their own hands for inciting the PLO, they would never support Israeli athletes.

Now, I have a message to all the members of the IOC. The torture inflicted by “Black September” on the 11 Israeli athletes and their families took 48 hours. Your torture of the families and the memories of those esteemed athletes has lasted 40 years. I am not satisfied with a moment of silence in every Opening Ceremony of the Summer Games. Now I want all of you to lose your jobs and be replaced by real Olympians who care about the athletes and believe in the Olympic charter.

The threat of the IOC coming after me does not scare me anymore. When you have no more dignity, you have nothing to lose. So, members of the IOC — my name is Guri Weinberg and I am the son of Moshe Weinberg, the wrestling coach murdered at the 1972 Olympics. And I am not going away.

Patriot

What is a patriot? Microsoft Word offers the following synonyms: loyalist, nationalist, flag-waver, partisan, compatriot or fellow-citizen, and jingoist.

Germans fought for their nation during WWII. They were probably not all Nazis but they were loyal to their nation and wanted to see their nation win the war. Those loyalists were patriots. So a patriot is someone who feels a strong support for his or her country. Apparently it is a blind allegiance.

Strangely Ron Paul, while campaigning for the presidency, said that while Army soldier Bradley Manning’s may have “technically” broken the law against releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, he did so for the purpose of exposing the “horrible things” being carried out by the U.S. Government. Referring to Manning’s detention before trial, Paul said, “Should he be locked up and imprisoned?” Manning should be seen as a “political hero” and “true patriot who reveals what’s going on,” Paul said.

Using the Ron Paul logic; Daniel Ellsberg, an employee of the Rand Corporation would also be a patriot. Ellsberg precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers. He was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 2006.

Most definitely our volunteer army is made up of patriots.

Dictionary.com provided these two definitions

1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

My definition is a person who fights in every way he can to make his country the very best.

Romney: You bet Jerusalem is the capital

For pro-Israel Democrats who continue to support Obama, this article should raise some thoughts.

What does it mean to those who attack Israel when this US administration refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? Will this keep Israel safe? Or does it embolden them in their continued rejection of a Jewish State of Israel? If Iran attacked Israel what would the US administration do?

Thanks for reading these columns, David Bancroft

From Lawrence White

Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:47 PM

Romney: You bet Jerusalem is the capital

Lawrence W. White

At a news briefing in the White House three days ago, Jay Carney, White House press secretary, was asked by a reporter:

” What city does this administration consider to be the capital of Israel, Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?”

Carney refused to answer, other than to say “Our position has not changed.” Other reporters pressed him for an answer, again with no response.

The next day, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) responded to Carney’s refusal to answer.

“For thousands of years, Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish people, but this administration refuses to say if Jerusalem is the true capital,” Cantor said. “At a moment when Israel is facing so many perils, the United States should be standing by our ally, not quibbling or quarreling about its capital city.”

In 2008, then candidate Barack Obama told AIPAC that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” (Within 24 hours he backtracked on this statement).

Since taking office, the President, Vice President and the Secretary of State, all of whom had previously touted strong pro-Israel credentials, have made statements or taken actions detrimental to Israel’s security, as well as opposed any construction in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

This should give pause to those who believe our President when he claims that, with respect to pro-Israel credentials, he has the best record of any President of the US. Never mind the repeated hostility shown to the Prime Minister of Israel by our President, never mind the fact that Secretary Clinton screamed at Benjamin Netanyahu over the telephone, something she has done to no other foreign leader, never mind that, in the words of Aaron Miller, “unlike his two predecessors — Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – he’s not in love with the idea of Israel.”

And now, we have Mitt Romney visiting Israel. For him, there is no ambiguity as to the capital of Israel. Below is an article written by Jennifer Rubin, who writes for the Washington Post, describing the visit to Jerusalem by Mitt Romney.

—

Romney: You bet Jerusalem is the capital

By Jennifer Rubin

Without specifically criticizing President Obama in his speech in Jerusalem, Mitt Romney delivered a blow to the Obama campaign’s frantic efforts to defend the president’s hostile stance toward the Jewish state simply by saying: “It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.” The Obama administration can’t even say that much, a sign of how reflectively protective of the Palestinians’ sensibilities is this president. Of course, Jerusalem is the capital. It was declared so in 1948. The Knesset is there. The disposition of its borders is a matter for final status negotiation, but only an uninformed or virulently insensitive administration would be unable to distinguish the two.

In a bit of cleverness the Romney team sent out the text of the speech with this header: “Mitt Romney today delivered remarks to the Jerusalem Foundation in Jerusalem, Israel.” That is a deliberate dig at this administration. which has repeatedly put out documents suggesting that Jerusalem isn’t in Israel and has attempted to scrub from the White House Web site the reference to Israel’s capital.

Romney’s speech paid tribute to America’s historic relationship with Israel. (“Different as our paths have been, we see the same qualities in one another. Israel and America are in many respects reflections of one another.”)

It also was a forceful rebuke to Obama on a number of levels. First on Iran:

Over the years Iran has amassed a bloody and brutal record. It has seized embassies, targeted diplomats, and killed its own people. It supports the ruthless Assad regime in Syria. They have provided weapons that have killed American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has plotted to assassinate diplomats on American soil. It is Iran that is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and the most destabilizing nation in the world.

We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran’s leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions.

We should stand with all who would join our effort to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran — and that includes Iranian dissidents. Do not erase from your memory the scenes from three years ago, when that regime brought death to its own people as they rose up. The threat we face does not come from the Iranian people, but from the regime that oppresses them.

Five years ago, at the Herzliya Conference, I stated my view that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability presents an intolerable threat to Israel, to America, and to the world.

That threat has only become worse.

He also pushed back on Obama’s notion that because he’s been supportive of Israel with military assistance he can be credited with a good record on Israel:

I believe that the enduring alliance between the State of Israel and the United States of America is more than a strategic alliance: It is a force for good in the world. America’s support of Israel should make every American proud. We should not allow the inevitable complexities of modern geopolitics to obscure fundamental touchstones. No country or organization or individual should ever doubt this basic truth: A free and strong America will always stand with a free and strong Israel.

And standing by Israel does not mean with military and intelligence cooperation alone.

We cannot stand silent as those who seek to undermine Israel voice their criticisms. And we certainly should not join in that criticism. Diplomatic distance in public between our nations emboldens Israel’s adversaries.

And he delivered an implicit warning about Egypt:

After a year of upheaval and unrest, Egypt now has an Islamist president, chosen in a democratic election. Hopefully, this new government understands that one true measure of democracy is how those elected by the majority respect the rights of those in the minority. The international community must use its considerable influence to ensure that the new government honors the peace agreement with Israel that was signed by the government of Anwar Sadat.

As you know only too well, since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, thousands of rockets have rained on Israeli homes and cities. I have walked on the streets of Sderot and honor the resolve of its people. And now, new attacks have been launched from the Sinai Peninsula.

It was a forceful and thoughtful address signaling how his own attitude with Israel differs from Obama. No wonder Democrats are frantic.

Obama’s ablest surrogate to the Jewish community, Dennis Ross, is conspicuously sitting out the election. (He couldn’t even bring himself to say in the present tense that he supports Obama’s Israel policy.) Those pro-Israel Democrats who vouched for Obama in 2008 are now desperate to concoct criticisms of Romney (see my exchange with Jeffrey Goldberg), even for the moving symbolism of visiting the Kotel (the wall of the Second Temple) on the day mourning its destruction, Tisha A’Bav. (Romney noted: “It was Menachem Begin who said this about the Ninth of the month of Av: ‘We remember that day,’ he said, ‘and now have the responsibility to make sure that never again will our independence be destroyed and never again will the Jew become homeless or defenseless.’ This, Prime Minister Begin added, “ ‘is the crux of the problems facing us in the future.’ ”)

That Romney would visit the site of the Second Temple’s destruction on the commemoration of its destruction, like going to Normandy cemeteries on D-Day, is a sign of great sensitivity. (Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu underlined this point by inviting him to break the fast on the mourning day at Bibi’s home).

Pro-Israel Democrats, like all supporters of the Jewish state, should be honest enough to acknowledge, as Aaron David Miller does, that Obama “is not in love with the idea of Israel.” He can’t even get along with its elected government. Romney, by contrast, is plainly an Israel-phile and already enjoys a close relationship with the prime minister. On this, Romney left little to the imagination.

Mormons in Israel

For those of you who do not read the Los Angeles Times this article will be of interest. I do not trust Mitt Romney because he has been a serial flip-flopper. There is hardly a position he took as governor of Massachusetts that he has not changed. If you can believe him, Romney says he would never criticize Israel and would be a steadfast ally to the Jewish state. You could call it politics but there does not appear to be any issue that is core to his beliefs. Still this article may give you pause to at least listen to his campaign.

Mormons in Israel

By Rafael Medoff

Mitt Romney’s trail to the Holy Land was blazed by a Utah missionary a century ago.

MITT ROMNEY’S visit to Israel will generate much speculation on the role Jewish voters will play in the U.S. presidential election. His visit may also spark discussion about Mormon-Jewish relations in the wake of the recent controversy over a Mormon temple that conducted posthumous baptism ceremonies for some Holocaust victims.

But another Mormon’s visit to Jerusalem, 99 years ago, deserves some of the spotlight too. Because that little-known visit ultimately had a decisive impact on Jewish history and America’s response to the Holocaust.

In 1913, 29-year-old Elbert Thomas and his wife, Edna, wrapped up their five-year stint in charge of a Mormon mission in J apan and prepared to return to their native utah. They decided to pay a short visit to Turkish-occupied Palestine on the way home.

The Holy Land figures prominently in Mormon theological tracts. Thomas was keenly aware of Mormon prophecies about an in- . gathering of the Jewish exiles and the rebirth of the Jewish homeland.

“We sat one evening on the Mount of Olives and overlooked Jerusalem,” he later recalled. “We read the poetry and the prophecy, the forebodings and the prayers, with hearts that reached up to God.” Under “stars the likes of which you see nowhere else in the world but on our own American desert, out where I grew up,” Thomas read the lengthy “Prayer of Dedication on the Mount of Olives” by Orson Hyde, an early Mormon leader and fervent Christian Zionist.

“Consecrate this land … for the gathering together of Judah’s scattered remnants … for the building up of Jerusalem again after it has been trodden down by the Gentiles so long,” Hyde had written in 1841. “Restore the kingdom unto Israel, raise up Jerusalem as its capital…. Let that nation or people who shall take an active part in behalf of Abraham’s children, and in the raising of Jerusalem, find favor in Thy sight. Let not their enemies prevail against them … but let the glory oflsrael overshadow them.”

The moment, the mood and the words moved Thomas to feel a deep spiritual connection to the Jewish people and to commit himself to becoming one of those who would “take an active part in behalf of Abraham’s children.” And three decades later, he was presented with an opportunity to do so.

In the 1940s, as a U.S. senator from utah, Thomas became deeply concerned about the plight of the Jews in Nazi Europe. He joined the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe, a lobbying group led by Jewish activist Peter Bergson. Thomas signed on to its full-page newspaper ads criticizing the Allies for abandoning European Jewry. He also cochaired Bergson’s 1943 conference on the rescue of Jews, which challenged the Roosevelt administration’s claim that nothing could be done to help the Jews except winning the war. Although a loyal Democrat and New Dealer, the Utah senator boldly broke ranks with President Franklin D. Roosevelt over the refugee issue.

Thomas played a key role in advancing a Bergson-initiated congressional resolution calling for creation of a government agency to rescue Jews from the Nazis. Sen. Tom Connally CD-Texas), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, initially blocked consideration of the resolution. But when Connally took ill one day, Thomas, as acting chair, quickly introduced the measure. It passed unanimously.

Meanwhile, senior aides to Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. had discovered that State Department officials had
been obstructing opportunities to rescue Jewish refugees. Morgenthau realized, as he told his staff, that the time had come to say to the president, “You have either got to move very fast, or the Congress of the United States will do it for you.” Armed with a devastating report prepared by his staff, and with congressional pressure mounting, Morgenthau went to FDR in JanuaryI944.

Roosevelt could read the writing on the wall. With just days to go before the full Senate would act on the resolution, Roosevelt preempted Thomas and the other congressional advocates of rescue by imilaterally creating the agency they were demanding: the War Refugee Board.

Although understaffed and underfunded, the board played a major role in saving more than 200,000 Jews during the final 15 months of the war. Among other things, the board’s agents persuaded a young Swede, Raoul Wallenberg, to go to German-occupied Budapest in 1944. There, with the board’s financial backing, he undertook his now-famous rescue mission. Thomas’ action in the Senate was an indispensable part of the chain of events that led to Wallenberg’s mission.

The Swedish government, together with Holocaust institutions and Jewish communities around the world, recently launched a yearlong series of events commemorating this summer’s 100th anniversary of Wallenberg’s birth. One hopes these celebrations will include appropriate mention ofthe role played by Americans such as Thomas in making Wallenberg’s work possible.

And as Romney retraces some of Thomas’ steps in Jerusalem, he will have special reason to feel proud of the role played by a fellow Mormon in helping to save Jewish lives.

RAFAEL MEDOFF is director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and the coauthor with Sonja Schoepf Wentling of the new book “Herbert Hoover and the Jews: The Origins of the ‘Jewish Vote’ and Bipartisan Support for Israel.”

Presidential Campaign is Down and Dirty

This week has been a big win for Obama. What can we conclude? The Obama re-election team has managed to distract the news media.

Rather than talking about the state of the economy talk shows and others are talking about Romney’s management of Bain Capital and the fact that Romney has released only two years of his income taxes. If we aren’t talking about those things we are talking about Romney’s bank accounts in other countries. Vanity Fair ran an article on the Romney off shore accounts that was replicated in the Huffington Post and the NY Daily News.

To finish off the week CNN State of the Union, CBS Face the Nation, and NBC Meet the Press all started their programs with interviews focused on Mitt Romney. Even Fox News Sunday found itself discussing the attacks on Romney.

Adding insult to injury BusinessWeek’s latest edition offered this derogatory cover.

If Obama’s re-election team can keep up the distractions you just might not vote for Romney. Surveys seem to bear out the success of the Democrats. That leads to the conclusion that we will see more of the same.

Essentially the Obama campaign has made Romney’s life the issue rather than the Obama presidency. It’s what George W. Bush did to John Kerry.

This is a very sad situation for Americans. With no stated economic plan from either Romney or Obama, Americans will not be focused on the real issues that face the nation. It probably won’t matter because there is no evidence that either one has a plan. That may be because neither of the candidates wants to address the issues.

Policeman of the World – Let China Do It

This cogent commentary in Newsweek June 25, 2012 was written by Niall Ferguson. He is their regular conservative contributor. Here is an abridged version of his column.

It’s not America’s job to intervene in Syria.

THE ARAB SPRING has plunged Syria into a bloody civil war. Now, with allegations flying that the Russians are supplying helicopters to the odious regime of Bashar al Assad in Syria, a familiar debate is underway. Should we intervene?

There can be no morally credible argument against intervention-by someone.

But why should it be the United States that once again attempt to play the part of global cop?

Since the early 1970s, the Middle East has absorbed a disproportionate share of American resources. Particularly since 9/11, it has consumed the time of presidents like no other region of the world. Yet it is far from clear that this state of affairs should continue, for three good reasons.

First, advances in fracking technology and discoveries of bountiful natural gas reserves mean that North America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil will diminish rapidly in the next two decades.

Second, a new military intervention makes very little sense at a time when theU.S.defense budget is being slashed.

Finally, what is the point of humanitarian intervention in a region where no good deed goes unpunished?

So if not us, then who? Or perhaps that should be: if not us, then Hu? That, after all, is the name of the current Chinese president.

In terms of geopolitics,China today is the world’s supreme free rider.China’s oil consumption has doubled in the past 10 years, while America’s has actually declined.

Moreover, China’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil is set to increase. The International Energy Authority estimates that by 2015 foreign imports will account for between 60 and 70 percent of its total consumption.

Yet China contributes almost nothing to stability in the oil-producing heartland of the Arabian deserts and barely anything to the free movement of goods through the world’s strategic sea lanes.

Finally, the world is ready for the Chinese to participate more fully in international security. According to another Pew survey of 14 nations around the world, 42 percent of people now think China is the world’s leading economic power, compared with 36 percent who think it’s still the United States.

Under President Obama, U.S.grand strategy has been at best incoherent, at worst nonexistent. I can think of no better complement to the president’s recent “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific region than to invite China to play a greater role in the Middle East-one that is commensurate with its newfound wealth and growing military capability. NW