FrankWolfWatch

Does Wolf have a Shrine to PM Chamberlain?

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:13:20 GMT

David Zucker effectively satirizes Wolf's Iraq Study Group as advocacy of appeasement. [Hat Tip: HBL]

It brings up an important question evaded by advocates of direct negotiation: What are you willing to give Iran and Syria for what we want? It reminds me of something I wrote last May when Democrats were advocating direct negotiations with Iran.

In response to the failure of European-Iranian negotiations over Iran's development of nuclear weapons, Democrat leaders are now calling for direct negotiations with Iran.

The key to any negotiation is what less important points are you willing to give up to get what you want.

The Washington Post reports that an unnamed Iranian analyst has explained what the Iranian want from us:

In the grand scheme of things, as a traditional ally of Iran, we would like all of those things as well, but what would we want in return:

Would the Iranian regime agree to our goals? It is not likely that they would agree to any.

So to those praise negotiations, I ask, "Which of our five requirements would you be willing to give up? Further, for the sake of a negotiated settlement, would you be willing to give up all of them?

Dicey (5/2/2006)

Image Source: Cox and Forkum

The really odd thing that I had been hearing from ISG members on TV is that in talking to the Iranians and Syrians we should not assume that we have to give up anything but only establish that we are serious.

What magic words do they suggest to erase the unserious moderate policy of President Bush? When we invaded Iraq, our enemies took that action seriously. When we attempted words instead of violent action in the face of Iranian and Syrian continuing support for terrorism, they stopped taking us seriously.

Does Wolf CAIR?

Tue, 02 Jan 2007 00:35:59 GMT

The Council of American-Islamic Relations, an organization with ties to terrorists, has identified Congressman Wolf and Davis as targets for a campaign calling on them to repudiate Rep. Virgil Goode’s comments regarding the newly elected Muslim Congressman and the prospect for more Muslims in Congress.

While Rep. Goode’s comments were idiotic, this CAIR campaign misses the point, so Rep. Wolf is likely to fall for this slight of hand. There is precedent for our congressman caving into Muslim pressure groups. I witnessed it personally at town hall meetings he held at CIT and the Sterling library several years ago, when the organized Muslims were protesting raids against local Islamic charities that were supporting terrorism.

If Congressman Wolf, and Davis as well, wanted to do his job in response to the CAIR campaign then he should rediscover the neglected responsibility of oversight. Why is it that CAIR with its well know ties to terrorists is welcome to White House photo ops and the chambers of Congress? To what extent is CAIR a nest of foreign financed agents acting to undermine the War on Terror?

Will Congressman Wolf play the puppet at the end of terrorist strings, or do his job? With his track record, I am not optimistic.

Wolf Loves ISG, Wants More

Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:08:55 GMT

Congressman Wolf’s embrace of the Iraq Study Group, not only in its genesis but also in its result, is so complete that objective criticism of the ISG report is effectively criticism of Rep. Wolf’s approach to his responsibility as a legislator and his views on issues of importance to America.

As reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Rep. Wolf evaluated the ISG report was laudatory:

They've done a good job. The administration is very open to it; the Congress is. . . . I think the recommendations are realistic. There's no politics connected to them. And when have you last seen 10 people -- senior people, people who have wisdom -- come together? Perhaps this is a model for resolving other tough issues.[1]

The Navy Times provides more insights regarding Rep. Wolf’s thinking on the ISG report:

But the Baker-Hamilton group’s recommendations are different, said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who spearheaded the Iraq Study Group effort this spring. The difference between this group and others is that it is more consensus-driven and has no members with any agendas inside the Beltway.

“It’s the only group that is truly bipartisan,” Wolf said outside the hearing room. “There are a lot of wise people there, nobody is looking for a new job … I think they are going to give it serious thought.” [2]

The first issue that comes through is Rep. Wolf’s advocacy of the Congress abdicating their responsibility to unaccountable bipartisan commissions. It is a confession that Congress is broke, but instead of facing that fact and fixing that real problem, Congressman Wolf proposes ignoring the precedence of history in order to create a worse problem. This evasion, ad hoc pragmatism, and failure is a consistent pattern of official behavior by Rep. Wolf. Further, in the face of the failure of the ISG, our congressman continues to advocate such irresponsibility regarding entitlement reform.

The second issue is that Rep. Wolf is unprincipled. The values he praises are consensus and bipartisanship. In this specific case of post-war Iraq, both the Bush Administration and its Democratic critics are wrong, but somehow Rep. Wolf thinks that two wrongs can be made into a right. For that to be logically consistent, Rep. Wolf must been seeking a value other than American victory such a political cover, which he did receive this past November.

Rep. Wolf frequently does a good job identifying problems and marshalling resources to confront those issues; however, his ideas cause him to pursue solutions that waste resources producing consistent failures as he avoids the real key issues of protecting individual rights.

Virginians React to War on Iraq

[2] Gordon Lubold, “Study Group Calls for More Support of Iraqi Army,” Navy Times 12/6/2006

Thoughts on the Past Year

Fri, 29 Dec 2006 06:27:46 GMT

Working on New Year resolutions, I have decided to continue writing about Congressman Wolf and to do so with greater frequency, as if lesser frequency was possible.

With the year ending, there are two significant events from 2006 to comment on in summary:

1) Rep. Wolf was re-elected over a challenge by a Georgetown professor who contributed to the Hillarycare debacle. I supported neither but voted write-in for a Loudoun County resident who always champions individual rights. In the election results, I noted that neither Rep. Wolf nor Davis had any coattails for former Senator Allen. I suppose that Congressman Wolf’s advocacy of federal spending, opposition to capitalism, and appeasement of Muslims protesting raids against local charities supporting terrorism was sufficient to get him re-elected so that he could retain his diminished position within the congressional minority.

2) Congressman Wolf has been getting a lot of ink recently over his sponsorship of the Iraq Study Group. Personally, I opposed this as an abdication of his responsibility as a congressman, because he was dodging a tough one by passing the buck to a bi-partisan unelected paper writing commission. As the State Department is responsible for the failures in Iraq, as the responsible Appropriations subcommittee chairman, our congressman should have been more on the ball regarding State's repeated failures. However, this shift of accountability in Congressman Wolf’s knee jerk reaction to all problems that he and the Congress lack the integrity to confront personally. Will the failure of the Iraq Study Group help Rep. Wolf see the errors of his ways? Unlikely. I have intended to a detail review of the ISG report and perhaps this is the correct forum as Rep. Wolf is irresponsibly for that debacle.

Although his lack of performance in office has cost him my support at the ballot box, I wish Rep. Wolf good luck overcoming his problem causing flaws in the new year and the new Congress.

Wolf Hates Capitalism, Therefore I Hate Wolf

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:16:54 GMT

The following message was submitted to the Editor of the Loudoun Independent:

Frank Wolf, Board oppose toll hike

Road to Recovery (3/1/2002)

by Cox & Forkum
Image Source: Intellectual Activist

Let Us Buy Organs! Please, You are Killing Us!

Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:04:31 GMT

I sent the following e-mail to Congressman Wolf at his official site:

Please sponsor, co-sponsor, vote for and do whatever else necessary to amend the National Organ Transplantation Act of 1984 to remove prohibitions against a free market in organ donation. It is necessary to allow the unregulated sale of organs to alleviate the suffering and deaths of thousands of Americans.

I am not asking you to spend billions of dollars, but only to stop this immoral substitution of Congress' will for the independent judgment of individual Americans.

For more information, see article "Altruism: The Morality of Suffering and Death (Exhibit 347R: Organ Donation)" by Craig Biddle in Capitalism Magazine.

Mo’ Power Mo’ Scandal

Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:05:31 GMT

Recently the House passed a measure against internet gambling reportedly to cleanse their souls over Jack Abramoff, because he had lobbied against such a measure six years ago.[1]

But could that really be the reason? What say you my congressman?

"Outside lobbyists have manipulated this place," Wolf said. "This is an opportunity to reverse the manipulation."

I remember Frank Wolf making a similar argument at a town hall meeting in defense of his vote in favor of McCain-Feingold campaign finance deform. He said that it was necessary because Clinton rented out the Lincoln bedroom like a motel.

However, he is missing the essential issue. Lobbying and campaign donation abuses are caused by Congressmen who recognize no limit on their legislative domain and thus all interests must pay Congressman to influence the Congressman’s abuse of power. It bears a revolting similarity to the practices of the British Parliament that our Founders rebelled against.

At the moment of choice, Congressman Wolf frequently favors regulation and governmental controls at the expense of individual rights. His willingness to obstruct gambling as a public moral crusade is one example, and his support for restrictions on individuals using money as speech to protect their individual rights from legislative depredations is another.

Lawmakers clamp down on illegal internet gambling

When Everything Is Important, Nothing Is

Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:49:23 GMT

On budgetary matters, I have contented that for the most part there is less then a dime worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Over a budgetary issue that Congressman Wolf has proclaimed to be devastating, there is less than a dime worth of difference between Republicans. The Wolf’s crisis is over funding of the Census Bureau in 2007. While the Bush Administration wants to spend $878 million, the House has voted for $815.7 million and the approved only $828 million. [1]

I did not even know that we were conducting a census in 2007. That is because we are not.

But not to worry, Rep. Wolf promises a hearing later in the month to explain why fully funding the Administration request for the Census Bureau in a year no census occur is such a critical issue to the republic.

The Washingon Post cited several issues at stake:
* Preparations for the 2010 Census would be dangerously weakened impacted its cost-effectiveness and accuracy (then don‘t cut those effort and instead cut back efforts that are not constitutionally mandated),
* The agency would have to drop plans for hand-held computers (but given the rapid changes in technology should not such acquisition be deferred), and
* The agency could not provide an accurate count of residents living in group quarters such as college dorms, prisons, and mental hospitals (given government control of most of these institutions how much can this redundant effort really cost?).

In the grand scheme of things, the core functions of the Census Bureau are essential and the millions of dollars in dispute disappear in the sea of our trillions budgeted. However, there is an important principle at stake: Appropriators must be more than cheerleaders for the Administration or the programs they authorize as there is a limit to federal revenue requiring prioritization and cuts.

So long as Congress lacks the courage to eliminate non-priority programs and restrain program growth, there will be competing factions on the Hill robbing Peter (Census Bureau) to pay Paul (law enforcement grants).

[1] D'Vera Cohn, “Census Bureau Fears Budget Fallout: Proposed Cuts Said to Hurt Preparations for 2010 Count,” The Washington Post, 7/15/2006, A10.

Wolf Does Legislation in 109th

Sat, 27 May 2006 21:07:29 GMT

If you go to Rep. Frank Wolf’s office website to find out what legislation he has been sponsoring and co-sponsoring in this Congress, you could get the impression that he has taken off this session, because all of the legislation linked to his site is from the 108th Congress, which ended about a year-and-a-half ago.

As a service to our hard working congressman, the corrected links to get the legislation he has sponsored/co-sponsored are below. Unfortunately, as of now, despite an email notice, his staff has not corrected this error yet.

Legislation

Click here to view a list of legislation that Rep. Wolf has sponsored in this Congress.

Click here to view a list of legislation that Rep. Wolf have cosponsored in this Congress.

Wolf Against Capitalism

Wed, 17 May 2006 17:47:17 GMT

In his consistent willingness to advocate the use of government power to prevent the free exchange of values between individuals when the choices others violate his own subjective whim, Rep. Frank Wolf is no friend of Capitalism.

As an instance of this fact, look at his recent call for limiting oil company profits.

If he is such a nice guy who tries to solve problems, why does Rep. Wolf advocate such injustice against businessmen? In a recent opinion piece, conservative intellectual leader Bill Buckley explained the hostility of President Bush toward Capitalism because he “can hardly endorse unrestrained capitalism and pursue the grace of Christ.” Given Rep. Wolf’s application of his faith to public policy, the same premise applies to him as well.

Philosophy professor Andrew Bernstein has a new book which makes the moral case for Capitalism in contradiction to Wolf, Bush, and Buckley. He recently spoke with Stuart Goldsmith about this book titled The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire.

In the book, Bernstein explains the value that Wolf rejects:

This means that men are legally restricted from criminally interfering with the quest for values undertaken by other men.

The government’s proper role in economics is a straightforward application of its broader moral role as the protector of individual rights: by providing a rule of law--by protecting private property and safeguarding contracts--it establishes a legal context conducive to the creation of values. By punishing criminals--and only criminals--by limiting government involvement inthe marketplace to its proper function in all areas of human life--to the prevention of the initiation of force or fraud--the government of a properly capitalistic society provides an incalculable benefit to men’s lives: it protects those who create values and restrains those who destroy values or physically interfere with the creators. Since value achievement is the essence of life’s requirements, any governmental policy that promotes it is a boon to man’s life. [p. 212-213]

But if government is not the fixer of everybody’s subjective pain, then what is a congressman like Wolf to do? In the book, Bernstein observes:

Statists deride the laissez-faire system as “do-nothing government.” Two points must be made to refute this claim. First is that such a government protects individual rights, including property rights, an enormous task and achievement in the service of men’s lives--and one possible only to the government. This is hardly a “do-nothing” policy. Second, such governmental protection liberates the entire population of a society to engage in the creation and exchange of life-giving values, including material ones. The so-called “do-nothing” government is actually a political-economic system of “free-to-do” individuals--of “do much” productive citizens--who, protected by the principle of individual rights, create the enormous abundance so characteristic of all capitalist societies. [p. 213-214]

While Rep. Wolf has been loud and proud about his ability to seize loot from the federal revenue to return to the district, most every time he does so he is actually missing an opportunity to protect our rights by opposing the programs that interfere in the market. It is past time for Rep. Wolf to focus upon the most critical role of legislators, which is the protection of individual rights.

For more about what Capitalism is and by inference Rep. Wolf is not, Stuart Goldsmith’s program on the Solid Vox network is available on-line [Click HERE for the interview with Andrew Bernstein]. In the discussion of how Capitalism is the only moral social/political system, the topics covered included the morality of Capitalism versus the evil of altruism, the failures of government run schools, the historical achievements of Capitalism, and the threat environmentalism poses to individual rights.