ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT BREAKDOWN

With less than a week remaining until the first votes are cast in the Iowa caucuses, GOP voters will soon begin choosing our next President. The viable candidates have all had ample opportunity to explain to voters why they are the best choice to lead our nation. We are at war with Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic terrorists on a global level. The largest state sponsor of terror, Iran, is doggedly pursuing nuclear weapons (despite what the CIA theorizes) and is directly responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq. Pakistan faces a continuing crisis that could potentially place the security of their nuclear arms at risk. Axis of Evil charter member North Korea continues to be a major threat to sell nuclear weapons or technology to terrorists. Bin Laden remains at large, occasionally sending out a video to taunt us, and our military needs a major expansion and retooling. That list only scratches the surface, so it's clear our next CINC will face unprecedented international challenges and dangers.

Republican primary voters must keep their core values in mind when making their choice. When Republicans run on and successfully communicate steady, common sense conservative ideas, they are nearly unbeatable. It's the Dems who must ameliorate their views and shift them to be effective in the general election. Republicans need only adhere to their views, which generally reflect the sentiment of middle America and not necessarily the liberal media on the coasts. Modern conservatism can be defined in a few phrases: aggressive war policies, strong border security and national defense, small government, lower taxes, pro-life, and pro-2d Ammendment individual rights. If a candidate does not meet at least those basic criteria, they are something of a moderate and thus cannot represent the base of the party. The GOP Eleventh Commandment has traditionally been not to speak ill of fellow Republicans. That's generally a good idea, but the stakes here are enormous and the time is short. Allow me to commit a few sins here and blast the contenders who are really pretenders.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has been all the rage with the liberal media elites lately, and his surge in Iowa caught everyone by surprise. Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, has apparently hit a nerve with Iowa social conservatives despite the National Right to Life endorsement of Fred Thompson. Governor Huckabee is essentially a social conservative who is has a questionable record on everything else. His record in Arkansas does is replete with tax increases and accommodation of illegal immigrants. He showed a disturbing lack of judgement in his many pardons and commutations. He has zero foreign policy or military experience, and that's been seen in his many factual mistakes over the last month. Huckabee may be a nice enough fellow, but he is not prepared to be President. The media support for him is a big red flag, considering their agenda to nominate the easiest to defeat Republican possible. Not a conservative and not prepared, scratch one Mike Huckabee.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has been near the tops of the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's been a successful businessman, and as the wealthiest candidate has plenty of cash on hand. Despite his best efforts to explain and play it down, his transformation to a conservative is recent and seems to have coincided with his Presidential bid. He comes across as charming and confident, albeit he bears a strong resemblance to Count Chocula. Romney cannot be considered a reliable conservative. There's no way to tell how his views might change once elected. He said the liberal things he had to say to get elected governor of a blue state, and now he's saying the conservative things necessary to become the Republican nominee. His record on illegal immigration as governor is not encouraging. His lack of foreign policy and military experience speaks to his lack of readiness to serve. Not a conservative and not prepared, scratch one Mitt Romney.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani remains at the top of most national polls for some reason. Rudy's social views are decidedly liberal, and his vows to appoint strict constructionist judges ring hollow. His aggressive war policies are commendable, but his experience in international affairs is limited to travel. Guliani is trying to sell voters on the idea that successfully running a small corner store means he can run a global enterprise. His record has faced scrutiny that has revealed touches of scandal and moderate to liberal policies. His leadership of New York on September 11th was admirable, but his penchant for mentioning 9/11 in answering the most unrelated of questions is irritating. Rudy's strategy of losing at first and coming on strong later in more favorable primary venues appears flawed. Not a conservative and not prepared, scratch one Rudy Guliani.

Arizona Senator John McCain is a certified war hero, there's no doubt about it. He is an honorable man who is definitely willing to place the good of the nation ahead of his own political interests. The problem is that McCain has repeatedly shown a zeal for abandoning or compromising conservative principles to achieve consensus progress. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law he authored is a tangled mess of a joke that has done little but make it harder for Republicans to compete. McCain always seems to lead the pack in the rush to cut deals with liberals. His support of a "comprehensive" immigration reform bill that granted amnesty to illegals nearly sunk his campaign. While not disqualifying, his age is a concern. Not reliably conservative, scratch one John McCain.

That leaves former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. His reliably conservative record goes back decades. His foreign policy experience, while not commanding, is adequate and he displays a vast knowledge and clear understanding of the issues. The key is that Fred has the ability to communicate the values of the party in a clear and congenial manner to most Americans. He has a commanding presence that would go far in a general election campaign and especially debate. His support for strict border enforcement and a major investment in our military stands out above the crowd. No other candidate has laid out as many detailed proposals as Senator Thompson, despite the lateness of his entry. If the party of Lincoln is to continue as the party representing conservative values, Fred Thompson is the only possible choice. The Democrat nominee will be a liberal of the far left who can be philosophically exposed in the general, and Fred is the best man for that job. Republican caucus participants in Iowa can insure the continuation of a conservative agenda for their party by throwing their support to the only viable candidate, Fred Thompson.

There are a few other candidates, none of them electable. California Representative Duncan Hunter fits the bill but has gone nowhere and has gained no traction at all. Texas Representative Ron Paul is an ideological fossil whose presence has actually distracted from the process. California Representative Tom Tancredo recently dropped out after running an unsuccessful one issue campaign on illegal immigration, then mystifyingly endorsed Romney despite his highly suspect record on the issue.

Next Thursday starts the process. If Republicans want to win next November and guarantee a strong, secure nation run on conservative principles, Fred Thompson is the only choice.

BHUTTO ASSASSINATION A REMINDER

The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto today in Pakistan is a stark reminder to all Americans of the dangerous world we face. Bhutto, shot and suicide-bombed following an election rally in preparation for national elections January 8, was the first female leader of a Muslim nation and had recently reiterated her support for democracy and opposition to radical Islamists like the Taliban. Pakistan is a mess despite American support estimated at $10B since 9/11, and the security of their nuclear warheads and missiles is highly questionable. It is another situation in which the United States must have a firm, adult hand on the tiller of state, because the stakes are too great to do otherwise.

Americans will begin choosing a President one week from today in the Iowa caucuses. Every caucus participant, and everyone voting in the Presidential election, must consider who they want in command of the United States military and national security policy when international crises arise. We face a suicidal, determined enemy bent on our destruction, with nuclear weapons if possible. We cannot afford to have a squishy or hesitant CINC. We may not be the world's policeman, but when the rest of the world dials 9-1-1, the phone rings at the Pentagon. America needs a firm and decisive leader who will project credibility and strength, a leader who makes it clear that the United States is always leaning forward and will respond to attack with overwhelming force. The Oval Office cannot be seen as a puzzle palace that rarely gives foreign powers identifiable signals. Our strategies and policies must be clearly communicated to avoid any little misunderstandings. The commander of our military men and women must be seen as unhesitatingly forceful in foreign capitals to best insure our security. The decisions of voters over the next ten months will determine who that next commander is, and it's a decision that should be made with great consideration of that role.

The idea of a modern nuclear arsenal complete with delivery vehicles in the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists is too apocalyptic to ignore. Musharraf has been a convenient if not perfect ally since September 11th. While he has failed to crack down on the Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in his own country, he at least provided control of the suspect Paki military and its nuclear assets. Or he did provide control until the United States and other western nations pushed him to resign as head of the military after a recent constitutional crisis between him and Pakistan's supreme court over his dual role as head of state and the military. Faced with lawyers in the streets and a myopic zeal for democratic reform from western powers, Musharraf knuckled under to the pressure and abandoned his position as military chief. Bhutto had hoped to return to power after a long exile and might have provided a stronger ally had she survived. Now the country is in turmoil and no one can say where it goes from here. The potential nightmare scenarios are too numerous to count. Musharraf is all we have in Pakistan. He may be a military dictator, but the alternative is even less acceptable. And since our unmistakable primary concern is the nuclear arsenal, we really have no choice but to back him for now.

The situation in Pakistan is a reminder to all Republican Presidential primary voters of the complex and dangerous problems with which our next CINC will wrestle. The safety of our families and children depend on picking the right person for the job. The GOP candidates have all made their cases well enough for those paying attention to make an informed choice. When all the candidates are judged on their ability to be our next CINC, the clear choice is Fred Thompson. Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain pale in comparison to Fred's ability to articulate policy in an understandable way that leaves no room for doubt about our intentions. We cannot afford to place our nation in the jeopardy that would be the result of any other choice. Fred Thompson's forthright and direct style are just what America needs in it's next President, and Iowa's voters should take heed of recent world events and give Fred the support he needs. The other gentlemen running simply do not fit the bill, and Thompson offers conservatives a strong leader in troubled times.

I blame the Neocons. I wrote at the time that we shouldn't push Musharraf too hard or too fast. The desire of certain administration members to force the democracy agenda in a nuclear armed nation rife with Islamic terrorists was clearly a mistake. Our national security interests should always be placed ahead of any plan to force democratic reform of foreign lands. The Neos failed to anticipate the resistance in Iraq, and they're efforts to support elections as a cure-all for Islamofascism have resulted in a Hamas government in the Palestinian territories and potential loose nukes in Pakistan. Free elections are all well and good, but they aren't always in our best interests. We should always be hesitant to micromanage the affairs of other nations. It's time America placed national security above ideological concerns, and a Fred Thompson administration would do just that.

TORTURE AND THE TICKING BOMB

A brief comment on the use of torture to extract information in a "ticking timebomb" scenario in which American lives are at risk:

1. Properly conducted intelligence work should prevent 99.9 percent of all such scenarios. Unfortunately, the gutting of our intel services after the fall of the Soviet Union has greatly diminished our capabilities. While the rebuilding of these organizations is underway, these are not abilities that can be quickly recovered once lost.

2. The CIA claims of useful information being extracted from detainees subjected to waterboarding are highly suspect. The agency is rotten with an anti-administration agenda that is complemented by it's usual defiance of Congressional and Presidential authority of it's activities. How odd that the "interrogation" tapes were destroyed. Was it to prevent their use as enemy propaganda, or was it perhaps because any civilized person viewing them would find them disgusting and morally reprehensible? The CIA has been out of control for decades, much to the detriment of our national security.

3. Either we are a nation that respects human dignity, or we join the long list of cruel dictators and murderous regimes that have used torture as an instrument of national policy. That is not a crowd we should aspire to join, and it's not the image we should be cultivating abroad. This is a black and white issue: once torture is allowed in certain specific situations, it's use will become more and more widespread by more and more arms of government. Any rules originally instituted to control it will eventually slacken. Nations cannot dabble in evil because it eventually takes over completely. If it's use against enemy detainees is accepted, how long before it's use is considered against American citizens thought to hold vital information? If it's so harmless and innocent, why not use waterboarding on the next American accused of a murder, kidnapping, or molestation? Why not, if it works and it's not torture? It could save lives! The point is that it's unacceptable. The whole purpose of limited democratic government is to secure our rights by preventing the predictable abuses of power by the folks in charge.

4. The legal definition of torture under the Geneva Conventions is broad enough to allow plenty of slack to interrogators. The proper application of sleep deprivation, lighting and sound manipulation, and other softer techniques will break most men over time. Theatrical elements come into play as well. Outright lying and chicanery are well within bounds. The line is drawn at beating and the intentional infliction of physical pain. All the mental possibilities are open. Surely we are wise enough to implement effective techniques that don't cross the line.

5. Our enemies use propaganda to recruit new members and distort our efforts. Allowing the use of torture provides them a fiery example of American misdeeds. Even our best efforts will be spun by the terrorists and their Arab press allies to make us look bad, so something like torture is front page news. Look at America, they can say, the defender of democracy and human rights is a torturer of prisoners. All the years of good work done by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is partially erased in the mind of the Arab public each time America is even accused of wrongdoing.

6. Allowing the use of torture places us on the same moral plane as Al Qaeda and centuries of just plain evil men. We cannot claim moral authority if we do not engage in moral practices. Respecting the laws of land warfare is not a burden, it is a set of standards that raises our authority and morality in the world. Allies will be more likely to support our cause if we maintain our integrity.

7. I'll admit the ticking timebomb scenario is a rough one, especially if it's nuclear. But anyone involved in that brutal and sophisticated of an attack is unlikely to divulge any useful information even under duress. Capturing a 9/11 hijacker on 9/10 probably would not have prevented the attacks. They would have been carried out by the others regardless, and you're not likely to break a committed terrorist in a day or two. Any information he gave up would likely be a false lead to delay us. The work needed to prevent such attacks comes well before that stage.

8. We cannot expect captured Americans to be treated decently while allowing torture of enemy prisoners. Allowing harsh techniques practically guarantees their use against our troops.

PRIMARY THOUGHTS: It is possible the Republican Party may nominate someone for whom I cannot vote. I will never again vote for someone who is not a reliable conservative. And Rudy, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee are NOT conservatives, much less reliable. I am tired of voting for recent converts or candidates who run as conservatives and then govern as liberals. If Fred Thompson is not the nominee, I may be sitting this one out for the first time since I became eligible in 1984. There is very little difference between electing a Democrat and electing one of the gentlemen listed, so it wouldn't bother me at all.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUYS

Debate on the subject of torture is highly disturbing, because it is not a debate we should be having. Americans should find the matter equally disturbing, because it says volumes about who we are as a people. The United States of America should not let our standing in the world be denigrated by the use or even discussion of inhumane treatment of prisoners. While the legalities involved may seem complicated, the U.S. should always go the extra distance to insure proper treatment of detainees.

There has been much discussion of waterboarding of late. It's torture. If you don't think so, check it out on YouTube, but make sure to get one of the real vids, not one from the looney left. No sane human being can watch that procedure being performed and conclude it is anything but torture. Our standards in this area should be a "golden rule" standard. Would we want American POWs treated in a similar manner? Whatever information might possibly be obtained would come at great cost to our moral standing and would likely be highly unreliable. It took me about ten seconds of seeing waterboarding conducted to conclude that it is without a doubt torture, and it pains me to think my countrymen would engage in barbarity of this sort.

That brings up any number of questions about the definition of POWs or enemy combatants. According to the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, the terrorists we fight now don't technically fit into the definition of prisoner of war. They are not members of a recognized national armed force, they do not have commanders directly responsible for their subordinates, they do not have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, they do not openly carry arms, and they definitely do not conduct their operations according to the laws of warfare. The left would like to gloss over that reality, but it couldn't be any more clear. While the terms may exclude them, ANY prisoners taken by our armed forces should be accorded the full rights of POWs, and that means humane treatment. Granting full POW status not only is a gesture of civility, it stands in stark contrast to the conduct of our enemies for all the world to see.

Of course granting that full POW status also implies certain conditions on the enemy. No prisoners should be released as long as hostilities continue, period. If the detainess are to be accorded the status of prisoners in war, then nobody leaves until the war is over. If it's not over for fifty years, then so be it. Al Qaeda doesn't exactly operate with a strict chain of command, so no detainees should be considered "officers" and given special privilege. Only the few rights legally mandated for them should be granted, and never one bit more. Considering they behead their prisoners on the internet, that's more than fair. There are many tactics we can legally employ that are highly effective. Sleep deprivation, isolation, use of noise, and a system of increased privileges for cooperation are all within the limits. Prisoners who know they will not under any circumstances be released will fold more easily. We can beg, we can keep them up for days, we can blast them with nonstop Black Sabbath or bluegrass, but no torture.

America wears the white hat. We're the good guys, or at least strive to be. Proponents of harsh interrogation techniques always forward the ticking nuke story, but it's a red herring designed to eliminate further discussion. We are faced with a difficult conflict against elusive enemies who continually demonstrate their complete disregard for human dignity. Our response cannot be to descend to the depravity of our foes, but rather we should take every step we can to insure prisoners held by our forces are not mistreated under any circumstances. That provides not only a standard for others, but a standard we can live with afterward. Waterboarding was used during the Spanish Inquisition and by the murderous Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, not exactly regimes we wish to mimic. John McCain has been very clear on this subject, and he should know. The United States must declare that all enemy combatants will enjoy full POW rights and that we do not torture people, ever. While we may not expect our enemy to do the same, we cannot climb down into the gutter with them. We're supposed to be the good guys, and good guys don't torture prisoners.

HOW TO BETTER ELECT A PRESIDENT

With only a few weeks left until both parties begin their primary process for choosing the next leader of the free world, it's appropriate to review that process and recommend possible improvements. Certainly no method devised by man could ever be perfect, but the current system has major problems that require attention. This cycle of campaigns began earlier than ever, and yet the electorate is still largely uncommitted or persuadable on both sides. The Democraps are faced with an array of candidates who are virtually identical on the issues. Their substantive differences are few and minor. The GOP candidates vary widely on policy, but the Republican primary voter is still largely unsatisfied with field. Improvements to the process are long over due and would help voters and the entire nation choose better leaders.

The first step should be to remove Iowa and New Hampshire from their dominating positions. I'm sure the citizens of both states are good folks, but their routine has grown tiresome. Why should every potential President have to pass muster with them first? Why not Virginia or Ohio or Hawaii or Texas? Now the state legislatures are competing with each other in setting the earliest primary date possible. The process is now compressed and will result in a snowball effect for winners and runners up in both early states. Why not rotate who gets to be first, or would that be too fair? As much as I am loathe to support Congressional involvement in light of their reverse Midas touch, the insanity of the state assemblies may force a legislative resolution. That should properly only be done by Congress, hopefully before the courts manafacture a remedy. In any event, the tired old dogs of Iowa and New Hampshire Presidential primaries always coming first should be retired permanently. There are fifty states in the union, not just two.

The debates in both parties have been painful to watch. The complete lack of focus on substantive issues and instead on sound bite one liners does not help differentiate the prospects from each other. The GOP debate hosted by PBS in Iowa this week, planned to be the last, was so bad the party may schedule another. The sheer number of candidates on both sides inhibits free debate. Organizations running these hootenannies need to pare down the numbers as time goes along. Anyone not garnering at least ten percent in national polls is wasting valuable speaking time. The GOP field should be down to four by now (Thompson, Romney, Guliani, McCain), and the Dems could be down to three (Billary, Hussein Obama, Little Lord Fauntleroy John Edwards). That would allow for deeper discussion of the issues and a higher degree of definition for voters. The inclusion of fringe candidates like Crazy Dennis Kucinich and Fossil Ron Paul does nothing to enhance the process or debate, and in fact is a major distraction and annoyance. Fewer participants would also mean more free duscussion instead of each person getting thirty or sixty seconds to explain a position on policy vital to our country. I would go even further. Can the YouTube nonsense and let us hear the candidates interact with each other. One of the plethora of debates conducted before voting even starts should involve prospects answering questions proposed live by candidates from the other party. Can you imagine the heat and tension? How we got from Lincoln-Douglas to here is beyond me, but the current Presidential debate system is a mortally wounded beast that should be put out of it's misery as soon as possible.

The media coverage of Presidential primaries is simultaneously too much and not enough. Their liberal slant is equalled only by their selective reporting. Most of that substandard reporting is plain horserace coverage with little regard for the issues. Coverage of live events is sparce and best and usually reported as shallow sound bites. Someone should launch a POTUS channel for coverage of stuff like this as well as Presidential history. Even Fox News is squeezing campaign coverage in between Drew Peterson and the weather. It's too superficial and more like a racing form. Who's ahead is more important than stance on the issues. And when the media get behind a candidate, it matters. Just ask Mike Huckabee. Serious media outlets should provide more serious coverage of the ultimate choice for American voters, and consumers should force them to do so by voting with their feet.

Americans in both parties should recognize the importance of improving the process of electing a President. Changes like the ones suggested are not some nefarious design to hamper the Dems. All of them can only help the voters of both parties in every state. In choosing a President of the United States, the deeper and more detailed the better. We're not choosing the next local dog catcher, we're choosing our CINC and representative to other nations. Improving the process will improve the result.

JINGOCON

FRED STEALS THE SHOW FROM HUCKABOMB

The "Huckaboom" has now officially become a "Huckabust" after a "Huckabomb" performance over the past week for the formerly rotund Arkansas governor. What we've seen over the past several weeks is a flood of positive liberal media stories on Huckabee. Sure, some outlets have covered a few of the lower hanging fruits of scandal from his gubenatorial administration, but the mainstreams have given Huckabee a free ride. They have bent over backwards to cast his rise in the polls in as positive a light possible. The recent surge for Huckabee is a wholly manafactured product of the liberal media. One has to wonder why media outlets that never give conservatives an even break are suddenly and wildly enthusiastic in their support for a GOP Presidential candidate. Any conservative worth their salt knows it is because they consider Huckabee an easy mark for defeat in the general election. There would be no coverage of him at all, positive or negative, if he were considered a strong candidate. Reliable sources have reported that the DNC has issued directions telling members to lay off Huckabee. That's almost sinsiter when considered thoughtfully. Conservatives should always be wary of Republicans embraced by the media, especially at the national level. The few bits of scandal that have surfaced barely scratch the surface. Huckabee's use of pardons and commutations was exceedingly high. His long ago comments on AIDS patients would be used against him in the general. He faced sixteen ethics violation charges, one of which resulted in a $1,000 fine being paid. More importantly, he was not a fiscal conservative as Arkansas governor and was fully supportive of far too many tax increases. He may be a nice guy, but he's not a conservative. His ability to carry a campaign beyond Iowa and New Hampshire is highly questionable at best.

The GOP Presidential candidates gathered in Des Moines Wednesday for a PBS debate with the backdrop of the Huckabee media circus previously described. Once again there were too many people involved and a decidedly poor format. The worst part was moderator Carolyn Washburn, who performed a dour schoolmarm routine that irritated even the candidates. She enforced time restrictions like a grouchy traffic cop and did not allow for responses to attack as billed. Vitriolic Alan Keyes was involved for reasons that still are not clear, and his presence was an obnoxious distraction. The continuing presence of Ron Paul is just as annoying. Paul is a fossil, and when that remnant of an earlier time is dug up and dusted off, it's an isolationist policy of appeasement proven dangerous decades ago that does not mesh with the realities of the modern world. It was overall a very boring affair, thanks to the draconian limits placed on the candidates.

Let's review the performances. Former Massachussets Governor Mitt Romney (aka Count Chocula) was proclaimed the winner by the Frank Luntz panel on Fox even though he kept clearly enunciating his desire for "health care for everyone." The panel gave him big points for using the Reagan model of the GOP as a reference point, so that should tell you their mindset. Arizona Senator John McCain gave stuttering and disturbingly unsteady answers. McCain's reference to "reaching across the aisle" was code for cutting deals with liberals, reminding us of one of his flaws. Guliani was unimpressive and failed to adequately address questions about security details for his then girlfriend while mayor of New York. In what has to be a record low, Rudy only mentioned 9/11 once. California Representatives Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo gave adequate but uninspiring efforts.

The most glaring failure goes to Huckabee. His statement that the purpose of the tax code should be to make poor people rich smacks of socialism. His suggestion that music and art should be in every school is a federal program too far. Huckabee's constant Bible references launch him into an extremely unsettling preacher mode. Unfortunately for him, we're not choosing a cleric in chief. He has zero foreign policy experience at any level, and it shows. His reliance on cute sound bites and folksy little stories aren't enough. Huckabee demonstrated that he is clearly not ready for prime time. A continual smooch from the liberal media is not an advantage for a conservative candidate. See the smooch for what it is: a plot for defeat.

Fred Thompson stole the show. The candidates were asked to indicate their stance on global warming's causes by a show of hands, and Fred flatly refused. When Fred's request for a minute to explain his views was denied, he again refused to participate, channeling everyone's distaste for the format and getting a nice round of cheers. Fred's attack on the NEA as the main obstacle to improving education was even endorsed by Count Chocula. When his chance for a free statement came, Fred clearly made his case for a firm adult hand on the tiller of state in the coming years. His answers to the few other questions he had an opportunity to address were spot on and enforced his obvious supremacy among the field. We're just three weeks out from Iowa, and it's unlikely Fred will win there or in New Hampshire. The campaign then moves south, however, and it's there Thompson can really make hay. A reasonable showing in the first two states will help later.

Conservatives in Iowa better wake up and smell what the liberal media is cooking for them, and it certainly isn't victory in Novermber 2008.

JINGOCON

HARDBALL & SPOONS MAKE YOU FAT

CHRIS MATTHEWS NEEDS PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING: I dared to catch Hardball this evening, and I deeply regret it. The liberal disconnect from reality, law, and history never ceases to amaze me, but more about that later. Chris was all fired up about the latest NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) that claims Iran suspended it's nuke program in 2003. Matthews actually declared "Peace reigns."

The very same leftists who distort or ignore pre-war intelligence on Iraq to use it as a cudgel against the President are now insisting this bit of wisdom on Iran from the CIA is absolute, pulpit-pounding gospel that cannot be denied. That's because it fits their agenda of bashing the CINC no matter the risk to national security. First, we have to view any information coming from the CIA as suspect, and I'm sorry it's come to that. The American people deserve better than a top intelligence agency that has repeatedly demonstrated it's disdain for the President. They were wrong on the fall of the Soviet Union, wrong on Iraq, and they're wrong in this case. It's a shame one of the chief instruments of American defense is widely seen as not very credible, and this latest report does nothing to change that image. It's way past time to completely overhaul the Central Intelligence Agency to make it more effective and less roguish. Sometimes the spies try to function as a fourth branch of government, accountable to neither Congress nor the President, and that must end. The CIA is accountable to the CINC, period. Perhaps if the boys in Langley spent more time on research than on politics, we'd all be better for it.

Second, liberal reaction to this NIE is just more of their pacifist foreign policy. To the left, war is never justifiable under any circumstances and everything would be better if we were only nicer to other countries. It's a very romantic and childish view of the world, and it persists in liberal dogma despite all evidence to the contrary. The history of our great nation shows again and again that an America disengaged and prostrate against tyrants and other bad guys invites attack. Further, it's like the rest of liberal philosophy: based on emotion instead of logic. They see the world the way they wish it was and proceed from there. Maybe the reality is just too scary for them.

Chris trotted out tired old Delaware Senator and Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden, dean of the defeatist liberal foreign policy wonks. To make the situation even further over the top, Biden stood by his earlier statement actually threatening to impeach President Bush if he were to attack Iran without Congressional authorization. That's it, Joe, completely ignore the Constitution you are sworn to uphold. You know, that part about the President being Commander In Chief, and Congress having absolutely NO say except for funding. Biden is the stereotypical Senator who dreams of being King, gets tired of waiting, and attempts to usurp the power of the CINC. Then there's the sheer insanity of inserting that sort of divisive rhetoric into the body politic at a time when the credible threat of American military power is our trump card against a terrorist regime. Biden is stunningly naive and stupid for a man of his age and experience. I guess you never outgrow a bleeding heart.

Matthews never was a fair or insightful journalist. His usual guests from the media are largely Democrat mouthpieces posing as reporters or columnists. His show is now barely watchable. Not much more can be expected from a network (MSNBC) without a conservative voice. Joe Scarborough sold out to the whiny East Coast media long ago, Tucker Carlson is a nice guy but definitely not a jingocon, and Keith Olberman should be broadcasting in Arabic.

SPOONS MAKE YOU FAT: Another annoying tendency in our society amongst all types of folks is to blame an inanimate, concrete object for bad intentions or human actions. All the lefties think guns are in of themselves inately evil and that guns cause crime. To them, merely possessing a weapon can cause one to commit crimes, and therefore the answer to crime is to restrict gun ownership. The internet is evil and causes people to take all sorts of dangerous and irresponsible actions. Alcohol is evil and causes people to get killed in traffic accidents. Cellphones are evil and cause traffic accidents. Televison is evil and leads children to violence. Video games are evil and lead children to violence. Movies are evil and lead children to violence. Society is responsible for school shootings. The list is endless. In each case, it is the human responsibility that is being missed. No concrete objects should be seen as accountable for human actions. PEOPLE that use firearms in an illegal way or PEOPLE that are careless enough to get behind the wheel after drinking are the responsible parties, not the physical objects they employ. Children become violent only after years of parental neglect, not as a result of media. Again, the technology or the content is blamed instead of poor parenting and lack of discipline. It's just like saying spoons make you fat. PEOPLE are to blame for bad intentions and bad actions regardless of the technology or objects used. Guns don't kill people. No gun has ever killed anyone. Humans at the trigger have killed lots, but no gun ever did anything other that function the very way it was designed and intended.

JINGOCON

FRED WINS BY DEFAULT

Republican Presidential candidates gathered in St. Petersburg, Florida, Wednesday evening for a debate sponsored by CNN and YouTube. The previous Democrat incarnation of this debate was a monstrous joke that included a question on global warming from an animated snowman. For me, that alone discredited the entire forum. The snowman was absent this time, but the slant from CNN was not (more about that later). Once again, Fred Thompson distinguished himself as the best candidate of the field. His opponents have slowly but surely eliminated themselves for one reason or another, and this debate provided each with the opportunity to show us all once again why Fred is the man. The Republican Party as a whole must decide whether it will remain a party of conservative values, or moderate those views for perceived political advantage. Republicans win when they follow bedrock conservative values, and Fred Thompson is the best man to represent and express those values.
>
The venue itself does not exactly lend itself to intelligent debate, and CNN showed their usual bias in the choice of questions. The Clinton News Network did its best to prop up distortions and myths about conservative issues. Starting with a question about black on black crime clearly outside the scope of the federal government, a string of ridiculous little clips left no doubt about CNN's slip color. Next was a Muslim woman from (of all places) Alabama asking how America can "repair its image in the Muslim world." Throw in a little confederate flag, Bible, and abortion, and the question list looks like a DNC document. The crowning bit of liberal media poison came in the form of BG Keith Kerr asking about gays in the military. While everyone respects BG Kerr's 43 years of military service, he did not become openly gay until he retired, so there's clearly some crusading being done by the general. Then moderator Anderson Cooper allowed BG Kerr to deliver a speech from the audience in response to the candidate answers CNN had to know he would not like. BG Kerr got way too much time on an issue that seems microscopic to other issues facing our military. The last part of the debate was wasted not on finalizing statements, but instead on Mars exploration and a Yankees / Red Sox debate between Romney and Guliani that nearly made me ill. None of the debates for either party so far have addressed deadly serious issues in a detailed manner, and this one was certainly no exception. Including the YouTube element drives intelligent discourse toward entertainment, and that is not a good thing for Presidential politics. Animated snowman did have an understudy, though: a poorly animated, saggy-faced Dick Cheney asking about allocation of executive power to the VP. Fred got a chuckle from the live audience when he responded by saying he at first thought the cartoon Cheney was supposed to be him. Still, these debates are simply beneath the dignity of the office.
>
Let me issue specific disqualifications to Fred's opponents. Rudy is the easiest to start with because he's simply not a conservative. Being in favor of gay rights, for gun control, and pro-abortion is not conservative, so support for his candidacy is puzzling and troubling. Nominating Guliani would be a tragic departure from the values the party has espoused for over thirty years and would lead to defeat in the general election. His flimsy defense of New York's sanctuary city policy is normally topped with blaming the federal government. There is some element of truth to the accusation that Rudy is riding 9/11: he used the phrase six times Wednesday evening. Sorry, Rudy, but for the reasons listed and more, I can't vote for you.
>
Romney seems like a nice enough guy, but his recent conservative conversion is disturbing. He seemed flustered during an early confrontation when Guliani accused him of employing illegals at his "sanctuary mansion." His complete lack of military experience is not alone a disqualifier, but it's a thumb on an already heavy scale. Something about the guy gives me the willies. And he looks like Count Chocula, so Mitt is out.
>
While I greatly respect John McCain's service in Vietnam and five years spent as a prisoner of war, he has too often stood in opposition to conservative causes. His support of campaign finance laws and amnesty for illegal aliens are pokes with a sharp stick to the conservative eye not soon forgotten or forgiven. McCain is right on when it comes to the Iraq front and America absolutely not using torture, but that's not enough. I am indeed concerned about his age and health. I respect John McCain, but I cannot give my vote to someone who has so often offended me in the past.
>
Mike Huckabee is all the rage with the media, but I don't get it. He may be right on most of the issues, but the charisma to win the general eleection just is not there. He got in the best joke of the night by suggesting Hillary should be on the first rocket to Mars, but his propensity to slip into preacher mode is unsettling. The President is not a member of the clergy, so I don't want his speaking style to sound like he is. Again, nice guy, be he is not electable.
>
California Representative Duncan Hunter is a good man. He's right on just about all the issues, especially immigration. The problem is that he has zero name recognition nationally. More about Hunter later.
>
Representative Tom Tancredo is a single issue candidate. He's right on immigration, but it isn't enough to carry a general election campaign. His presence at least adds the immigration issue to each debate, and maybe that's his mission.
>
I will not give the other debate participant, a certain elderly House member from Texas, the privilege of printing his name. Suffice to say this fossil supports a policy of extreme isolationism long ago discredited. The man is a jackass and has no place in the debates or the modern geopolitical world.
>
Now to Fred. He is absolutely one-hundred percent dead right on all the issues. His speaking style and demeanor are ideal for the office. It's his ability to express conservative ideals in a plain-spoken manner that makes him the best Republican candidate for the general election. All of the other candidates have major flaws, with the exception of Duncan Hunter. That's why Fred should choose Hunter as VP. He fills the one void in Fred's resume, and that's military experience. Thompson/Hunter is a powerful combination to face the Democrats next November. Let's just hope the party is smart enough to stay committed to it's ideals. If it does, Fred Thompson will be the nominee, and he will win by articulating conservative values for a stronger America.
>
JINGOCON

THE DEMS HIT VEGAS

CNN held a Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas Thursday evening with all seven clowns attending. All of these debates of either party have been useless so far. Too many candidates that have no chance of winning and largely irrelevant questions are the norm. Wolf Blitzer and company didn't disappoint on that front. Each candidate provided their own examples of dangerous and misguided policies to endanger our republic.
>
Front-runner Billary Clinton danced through the minefield and avoided the mistakes of her last performance. She accused her opponents of "slinging mud". Imagine that, in a political campaign. She shares the same flawed view of Iraq as her fellow contenders. Her most befuddling answer of the evening somehow made a connection between the dissipation of the federal budget surplus (so graciously left by Slick Willie) and spending on the Iraq front. Does she not consider war as a result of unprovoked attacks on America legitimate spending? Billary has developed a standard weave: play the victim when attacked and present a facade of inevitability. So far her opponents are allowing her to do it successfully.
>
Senator Hussein "Emptysuit" Obama took every chance to press Billary on the issues, mostly without result except pathetic boos from the crowd, as if to doing so is a violation of the rules of chivalry. He made a puzzling connection of his own, linking Iraq spending to (get this) Social Security. He drew a few more boos for comparing Billary's tactics to Mitt Romney and Rudy Guliani, fightin' words in a Democrap debate. Hussein actually had the audacity to invoke the tradition of bipartisan unanimity on foreign policy. Odd, since he and his party have spent the last six years doing all they can to make a mockery of those words. Senator Emptysuit should educate the rest of his defeatist party about that idea.
>
Little Lord Fauntleroy John Edwards has locked on to the phrase "Bush, Cheney, and the neocons", and he used it like a mantra. Exactly who are "the neocons"? Whoever they are, they are responsible for the bulk of evil present in the world. After a gentleman named "Khalid Khan" stood up to complain about "profiling" at airports, Senator Fauntleroy went on a rant about "restoring respect" that spelled out how to lose the war. Edwards is another liberal dreamer who thinks he can make things better by being nice to people, a naive and dangerous notion. He should have told Mr. Khan that we were in fact NOT attacked by Finnish Baptists on 9/11, we were attacked by nineteen ARAB MUSLIM men.
>
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the most experienced executive of the bunch, has gone way too far in pandering to the far left of his party. He made the most shocking declaration by declaring human rights more important than national security, evoking flashes of Peanut Man Carter. Nothing could be more important to an American President than our national security. It is the definition of the job. Governor Richardson should look into the Presidential oath of office. He did, however, manage to work "Haliburton" into his evening, always a hit with the peaceniks. Nice try, Bill, but pandering alone won't get it done.
>
Senator Chris Dodd clearly demonstrated liberal thinking on judicial appointments. He claims he would have absolutely no "litmus tests". He also claims his appointments would all support Roe v. Wade. Well, Senator, that would be litmus test. Dodd also tried a little pandering himself by speaking Spanish in response to a question from the audience. Big whoop.
>
Senator Joe Biden was his usual curmudgeonly self. Biden apparently believes he can gain ground by repeatedly pointing out his experience. Of course, it's been wholly legislative and completely liberal. He even claimed he spoke to Musharraf about the situation in Pakistan before Bush did, a dubious statement at best. If he did, he is practicing diplomacy as a private citizen regardless of his Senate role. Senator Biden also sees a constitutional right to "privacy" in Section 5 of the 14th Ammendment, a bizzare translation of the text.
>
Crazy Dennis Kucinich provided his customary buffet of looney left drivel. He continued his one man crusade to impeach Bush and Cheney. He insisted the troop surge in Iraq is "fueling" the insurgency, but provided no evidence or rationale. That's because there isn't any. Kucinich's most dangerous idea was his complete rejection of preemption. That means an America under his administration would NOT respond to imminent attack. File that along with his ten thousand other insane notions.
>
A special SHUT UP HIPPY goes to the alleged Iraq war vet who stood up with his mommy to question the candidates about Iran. "Bring the troops home" was his catch phrase. Assuming he really is what he claims to be, he should be well aware that this war has a huge propaganda element to which he made a significant contribution. Way to help out your comrades still on the ground. For selfishly forgettting your buddies in time of war, SHUT UP HIPPY.
>
The Dems are making mountains out of the minor differences between them. They all support massive tax hikes to fund a major expansion in the size and scope of government. They all see government as the solution to every problem. They all claim they will "end the war", as if Al Qaida will just pack up and go home to become solid citizens if we withdraw. They all support varying degrees of amnesty for illegal aliens. They all support an American foreign policy based on weakness and vaccilation, and that's the most dangerous of all. None of them should be trusted with leading our nation.
>
JINGOCON

09 NOV 07

PAKISTANI NUKES: Somewhat lost in all the wreckless push toward forcing President Musharraf to call off his state of emergency and hold elections is the matter of Paki nukes and the missiles that deliver them. President Bush should be very careful about demanding Musharraf "take off his uniform". The thought of governmental chaos in Pakistan resulting in a radical Islamic takeover is horrifying. Those weapons would be used, given to Al Qaida, or both. The primary focus of the United States should be the security of all Paki nuclear materials. While publicly preaching democracy is all well and good, what we don't need is for that to result in loose nukes. Perhaps American interests are better served by the status quo, although there is some argument to be made concerning Musharraf's effectiveness in fighting terrorist forces. Former PM Bhutto is viewed as a stronger ally, but forcing a dangerous election to install her is irresponsible. The U.S. should take whatever steps are necessary to guarantee the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons without regard to altruistic fantasies. Failure to do so could result in the death of millions.

>

PLAYING POLITICS (AGAIN): House Democrats, having previously failed to override the President's veto on a defeatist Iraq funding measure, are apparently going to waste more time and try again. The CINC has requested $196B in funding for the war over the next fiscal year. The legislation now proposed provides only $50B and requires American forces to begin withdrawal. Not only is the effort a potential propaganda victory for Al Qaida, it comes just as significant progress is being made on the ground in Iraq. The continual effort by Dems to go beyond their Constitutional authority and legislate war policy through funding is absurd. Either provide the money or not. That is their singular role, but they attempt to dance around the edges while bashing Bush and abetting terrorist propagandists everywhere. The simple fact is that the Democrap leadership promised to end the war, and that is a promise they do not have the authority to fulfill. They know full well any funding measure with strings attached to it will be immediately and rightly vetoed, and that they do not have the votes in the Senate to override. Any time spent on bills known to be veto bait is completely wasted political grandstanding. Congress repeatedly fails to provide regular annual funding legislation in a timely manner, instead playing games with the lives of our troops.

>

AG CONFIRMED: Attorney General nominee Michal Mukasey was confirmed by the Senate late Thursday. The nomination looked to be in possible jeopardy over waterboarding, but resistance faded after President Bush let it be known it was either Mukasey or no one. The entire debate over interrogation tactics is excruciating, because there should be no debate. Waterboarding is a technique involving simulated drowning. It was used often during the Spanish Inquisition and during the murderous reign of Pol Pot in Cambodia. It is torture, and Congress should seek to define it as such, as well as enacting a clear enumeration of forbidden practices. There should be no vaguery on this subject. The use of torture is beneath a great nation like the United States and should not be tolerated. And don't start feeding me some garbage about an imaginary "ticking time bomb" scenario forwarded to legitimize cruelty. Using torture at any time makes us no better than our savage enemy. It is impossible for us to maintain the high moral ground while subjecting prisoners to simulated death. It all couldn't be more clearly unacceptable. We're supposed to be the good guys, and we ought to act like it.

>

ISRAELI WARNING: On Wednesday MG Yossi Baidatz of Israeli intelligence warned that Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009. Helpfully confirming that projection the very same day, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Iran now has over 3,000 centrifuges spinning away, presumably at Natanz. Barring miraculous diplomatic progress in the next six months, America will be forced to take action and strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The clock is ticking, and it's nuke powered.

>

MASTERS OF UNDERSTATEMENT: Reports issued by international bodies often demonstrate their generally tenuous grasp in reality. Just such a report is the one issued by the World Economic Forum on Thursday. It claims Muslim women are "struggling to compete for jobs, win equal pay and hold political office, falling behind the rest of the world in eliminating discrimination." That may be because they are held as virtual slaves, forced into arranged marriages, routinely beaten and frequently have their genitals mutilated. Get a clue.

>

MORE CHINESE POISON (AGAIN): Now we hear of toy beads from China which just happen to contain the date rape drug GHB. Two American children who ingested the beads are in unresponsive comas. It is once again clear that the continuing flood of poisoned Chinese toys is intentional. How else to explain the presence of a date rape drug? The United States government is failing miserably in its basic duty to protect our citizens from poisoning by foreign powers. ALL trade with China should cease until they stop attempting to murder our kids. The death or injury of American children by foreign goods is the direct responsibility of those in our government who pathetically refuse to protect our interests, largely for economic reasons.

>

JINGOCON

DEMS DEBATE IN PHILLY

>>>SPECIAL NOTE: "INTRODUCTION TO JINGOCONSERVATISM" CAN BE FOUND BELOW THE REVIEW OF LAST NIGHT'S DEMOCRAT DEBATE<<<


Seven Democrat candidates for President of the United States participated in an MSNBC debate Tuesday evening at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Brian Williams of NBC's Nightly News and Tim Russert of Meet The Press moderated the event. It was a two hour marathon that showed us nothing new and was essentially a forum for those trailing in the polls to bash Billary. Unfortunately, once again no one landed a solid blow despite all the wild swinging.
>
The Dems are remarkable in their uniformity of rhetoric and approach to policy. They share an approach to problems that sees government as the solution to every problem under the sun. Health insurance, the airlines, education, energy, cancer, you name it, and the Dems want to fix it with a broad expansion of government involvement and bureaucracy. They all think Bush is a buffoon, an idiot, an incompetent, a distorter, and a liar. They all support drastically raising taxes to fund various federal programs of dubious effectiveness. They all think "diplomacy" is the cure for all that ails us abroad, and it was touted Tuesday night as just that. Their proposed solution to Iran all starts with diplomacy, none of which has been successful by any measure so far. They all think the United States actively seeking to prevent a nuclear Iran is "saber rattling". The Dems have spent these events arguing around the edges because there is very little actual difference among them on major issues. They argue about who is most experienced and who has taken money from whom instead.
>
Each candidate had their moment. Billary successfully and surprisingly parried attacks against her recent vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization by pointing out that the option of doing nothing is worse. Hussein Obama tried to attack Billary on several issues, but none of his attempts were huge splashes. Little Lord Fauntleroy John Edwards continued his ironic campaign for the poor. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson incomprehensibly jumped to Billary's defense, saying some of the attacks bordered on personal (oh, no!). Senator Joe Biden, in one of the most accurate statements of the entire evening, joked Rudy puts three things in a sentence: noun, verb, and 9/11. Senator Chris Dodd seemed reasonable, wrong, and a little lost. Crazy Dennis Kucinich admitted he thinks he saw a UFO and called for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. You can always count on Dennis bringing a little spice of insanity.
>
The issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants came up late in the debate, and Billary attempted to soften her recent support for New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to do that. She gave a fuzzy answer to the direct question twice, a nugget to demonstrate her doublespeak Edwards and Obama jumped on with both feet. Only Dodd came out in outright opposition to licenses, but none of them advocated what should be done with illegals: arrest and deportation. Republicans must sincerely hope the Democraps continue to support licenses for illegal immigrants. That could become a major national security issue in the general election. Brian Williams asked Obama directly about his experience for the office, and Hussein actually admitted to strictly legislative work only, but claimed he's good at "bringing people together".
>
The only KUDOS of the evening goes to Senator Joe Biden for suporting a ban on toy and other imports from China. That's it.
>
We learned nothing. The format involves too many candidates to be a true forum of ideas. The "lightning round" is really a "sound bite round" and limits candidates to generalized answers. The same can be said of the Republican debates so far. Debate organizers should establish a minimum standing in designated polls for participation. We all know Billary, Hussein, and Edwards should have been the only three involved. Only then would the potential exist to compare differences and differentiate between candidates espousing the same socialist approach.
>
JINGOCON

INTRODUCTION TO JINGOCONSERVATISM

I. INTRODUCTION

A. "JINGO" WORD HISTORY: In 1878, Great Britain was gripped by anti-Russian sentiment. A popular song of the time contained the lyrics "We don't want to fight, but by Jingo if we do; We've got the ships, We've got the men, We've got the money too." By the turn of the century "jingoes" had become a somewhat derogatory term applied to anyone deemed too nationalistic or aggressive in foreign policy. Theodore Roosevelt spoke on the issue to the New York Times in 1895, dismissing the negative connotations of the phrase. The "we don't want to fight" part of the equation had been lost. Now the term is used like a swear word by the defeatist left. Defined in a post-9/11 context, it should refer to those supporting an aggressive and even belligerent war and foreign policy as the best means of securing America in the modern world. Modern American jingoists can point to multiple historical examples of a passive America inviting attack. Since 9/11 the equation has shifted in favor of "staying on offense" and high levels of American involvement abroad. The jingoist will rightly tell you America has no choice but to lean forward at all times, not just when under attack. The world is full of enemies and potential enemies, not butterflies and balloons.

B. MODERN AMERICAN CONSERVATISM: Largely sculpted by Ronald Reagan, conservatism in the sense used here centers around four basic ideas:

1. SMALLER GOVERNMENT: Government at all levels is too large, inefficient, and subject to fraud and abuse. Efforts to increase the size and scope of especially the federal government should be opposed.

2. LOWER TAXES: At least three times since World War 2 major federal tax cuts have spurred the economy and increased total government revenues due to faster growth. Government is also forced to be more frugal and less intrusive when taxes are kept low.

3. PRO-LIFE: Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and largely based on 1973 technology and medical evidence now known to be wrong. This matter is clearly not addressed by the Constitution, and thus should be left to the individual states.

4. PRO-2ND AMMENDMENT: The individual right to bear arms is a cornerstone of American freedom and is constitutionally guaranteed. Free citizens should not have to seek the permission of police or government agencies to trade or own arms for self-defense.

C. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: Combining the two root words gives us a specific and clear philosophy adhering to the four major conservative principles (lower taxes, smaller government, pro-life, pro-2nd Ammendment) and advocating an aggressive war and foreign policy. Jingocons believe America must adopt these policies or face moral and literal destruction.
>
II. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JINGOCONSERVATISM

1. The United States of America is the primary force for good in the modern world. Americans have shed more blood for the people of other lands than any nation in history.

2. The United States is and must remain the preeminent military force in the world.

3. The role of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the armed forces is sacrosanct and should not be infringed or impeded by the Supreme Court or Congress. The President should only take major military action with a Congressional declaration of war or authorization for use of force. The President is constitutionally obligated to take immediate military action without authorization in vital and immediate matters.
>
4. The United States should maintain a forward leaning posture in all international affairs. Military action should be taken only when all deliberate peaceful means of resolution have been reasonably exhausted. Ground forces should be used only when accomplishment of the mission is not possible with air and naval forces alone.
>
5. International organizations cannot guarantee American national security, and thus their permission is not needed or desired prior to taking military action vital to our defense. The United Nations should be dismantled if it refuses reform. The United States should not participate in or fund international agencies other than those whose members are democratic allies. International law should never be used as a basis or means of adjucating American domestic law.
>
6. The United States must not allow threats to our security to fully materialize before taking appropriate action.
>
7. The men and women of the United States military should always have the best training, equipment, leadership, and support than can possibly be provided. Pay and benefit levels for service members are woefully inadequate and should be drastically increased. The compensation for families of those killed in our service, and the compensation and health care benefits for wounded members and veterans should also be drastically increased. American veterans should receive priority in all federal, state, and local government contracts and hiring.
>
8. The borders and ports of the United States should be secured through physical or electronic means as soon as possible. Those who have violated our sovereignty and entered the country illegally should be deported immediately. Employers who hire illegal immigrants should face exorbitantly heavy fines. Priority for legal immigration should be given to democratic allies.
>
9. A clearly sufficient defense industry is vital to our national security. All weapons, equipment, and supplies utilized by the U.S. military should without exception be made in America.
>
10. The United States should never under any circumstances tolerate the use of torture. The U.S. Congress should clearly and unequivocally define torture, including specific procedures that are not permissable.
>
11. The spread of democracy around the globe greatly enhances but is not essential to American national security. All peaceful means of promoting and establish democratic governments should be encouraged and supported. The extent to which the United States should militarily support democratic movements should be commensurate with the desires of the foreign citizens involved and their own ability to assist.
>
12. Energy is a national security issue. Every reasonable effort should be made to reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign energy sources and to develop successful alternative sources domestically. Increased domestic production and sensible conservation measures should be pursued in the short term to alleviate market pressures. An America free from dependence on foreign oil would both greatly increase our flexibility abroad and strengthen our economy.
>
13. Ballistic missile defense programs are technologically feasible and should receive increased funding. Deployment of systems should only occur in requesting allied nations.
>
14. It should at all times be clear to foreign powers that the United States of America is and will remain no better friend and no worse enemy.
>
III. WHY THE "NEOCONS" WERE AND ARE WRONG: The group of supposed conservatives labeled "neocons" did not fit the name and had fatal misconceptions about military operations. These gentlemen were not new, in the sense that many of them had been in and out of government for years. They were, for the most part, not conservative in their desire to apply American military power to install democracy in a nation (Iraq) that had ancient tribal roots and no recent experience with any form of self-government. While our military will in fact succeed in this mission, it has been made far more bloody and difficult because of the poor judgement of the situation before the conflict began. The neocons usually consider the idea of America spreading democracy essential to our security. While it definitely improves our own security, it is also definitely not essential. Now this same group is hawkish on Iran, and that notion should be viewed with skepticism. Military action against Iran may indeed become necessary, but it remains the very last option and should be done only with detailed prior planning and without ground forces.
>
IV. WHAT JINGOCONSERVATISM IS NOT: Jingocons recognize that an America that is aggressive and active on the international scene best secures our own nation and assists our allies and potential allies. It is not warmongering, it is not bloodthirsty, and does not seek to dominate any foreign land. American troops are always liberators and we do not "occupy" other nations. The United States is and must be the most powerful force for good ever known by man.

BRAZEN 26 OCT 07

"THE RELIGION OF PEACE": Hina Saleem, pictured above, will be remembered in a service in Northern Italy next month. The young Pakistani woman was killed by her father and other male relatives, who claim she "dishonored" their family. Hina's crimes? Wearing western clothing, working in a pizzaria, and living with her Italian boyfriend. She was found in the family garden with her throat cut. This is a typical case of Muslim abuse of women, something American women of all political stripes should be decrying. That doesn't happen because the left does not want to be seen supporting W, so the left is silent about honor killings like Hina's, widespread beatings of Muslim women for trivial causes, and genital mutilation. You may notice a new link on this page to "The Religion of Peace" website. I highly recommend this site as a source of the ugly truth about Islam.
>
CODE PINK OUTRAGE: The pathetic anti-military group "Code Pink" has become a dangerous distraction on Capitol Hill. Secretary of State Condi Rice was confronted and nearly assaulted by a crazed woman with hands painted red on Wednesday before testimony to the House on U.S. foreign policy. This lunatic was able to get way too close to Secretary Rice, and the incident raises security concerns. "Code Pink" has been repeatedly disruptive on the Hill, and now some action must be taken. The group should be labeled a security risk and banned from Congressional access. The whole incident reminds us that you never have a flamethrower when you need one. "Code Pink" is an ally of Al Qaeda working to hamper the war effort, and should be treated accordingly. Dog cages at GITMO seem appropriate.
>
BILLARY'S B-DAY: Slick Willie hosted a fundraiser in New York city last night for Billary, who is turning 60 years old. Billy Crystal and Elvis Costello (remember those names) were among the stars present. The event was held at the Beacon Theater and raised over $1.5M for Billary's campaign. In an apparent attempt to make everyone ill, Slick Willie said his wife was "looking, I think, very beautiful." Yuck.
>
MONEY MATTERS: New figures for the estimated cost of the war are sending the left into a tizzy. As they have done in the past, the Dems will use the numbers to cry about social spending programs, as if there is any comparison. Frankly, discussing the costs of war is offensive. It's either worth doing or it's not. Americans won't need health care if they are killed by terrorists. The left is loathe to spend any money on the military at all (ever), so they'll use any means to pound the President. The Dems, as usual, have their priorities askew.
>
THOMPSON PROPOSES IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN: Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson is calling out his rivals and proposing federal funds be denied to so-called "sanctuary cities". Properly claiming current immigration laws are not enforced, Thompson took direct aim at Guliani and Romney. Both gentlemen supported a policy of harboring illegals while in office and now falsely claim a sudden conversion to tougher policies. "Taxpayer money should not be provided to illegal immigrants," Thompson said.
>
TELL 'EM: SECDEF Robert Gates, appearing before a European military conference, correctly questioned the commitment of NATO allies to the Afghan front. I can't say it any better than Gates: "If an alliance of the world's greatest democracies cannot summon the will to get the job done in a mission that we agree is morally just and vital to our security, then our citizens may begin to question both the worth of the mission and the utility of the 60-year-old trans-Atlantic security project itself." Amen, SECDEF.
>
JINGOCON

AN APOLOGY TOO FAR

California Representative Pete Stark took to the House floor today and offered his pathetic apology for his traitorous remarks last week. Stark claimed last week that the United States is killing innocents in Iraq, and that troops are dying in Iraq "for the President's amusement." A motion proposing censure offered by Ohio Rep. John Boehner late today failed after receiving only five Democrat votes. That once again affirms that the Democrat Party indeed does not support any part of our war effort or the brave men and women fighting it. Only five Democraps in the House agreed with the Republicans that Rep. Stark's comments were highly inappropriate and beneath a serving member in time of war. And that's only the beginning of the problems with this Congress.
>
The Nancy Pelosi-Harry Reid Congress has failed miserably by any measure. Claiming at the time they were elected in 2006 to end the war, they have caved in to Bush at every opportunity. The single arrow in their tiny little quiver is a nuke, the power of the purse. No matter how much stink they emit, Congress is constitutionally limited to either providing the funds necessary or not. The Dems are unwilling to fire that nuke for fear they too will be harmed by the fallout. Iraq might descend into chaos and genocide while the neighbors fight over a piece for themselves, launching a much wider war. Now that we are seeing some signs of success, they might look like they abandoned Iraq too soon. All that would then be on their head, and the Dems aren't politically brave enough to take that risk. As the situation currently stands, the Iraq front belongs to Bush and the Republicans, and the Dems would just as soon it stay that way until after November 2008.
>
This Congress wastes time like no other. Every bit of crying about the war is a waste of the legislative calendar. They have, like previous Congress', failed to submit any major part of the FY2008 federal budget in a timely manner to the President for signature, and here it is almost November. Speaker Pelosi failed in her effort to override the President's veto of SCHIP. Apart from continuing to fund the war, this Congress has done precious little. Naming federal courthouses and raising the minimum wage are not considered major accomplishments. Both houses spend endless days debating a war over which they know full well they have very limited power. Meanwhile important business remains undone.
>
Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are worse than incomptent. They lead their party without clear direction or authority. The Democrat Party has been assimilated by the anti-military left and thus blows plenty of smoke about actions they never intend to take. They have allowed repeated treasonous statements by their members to pass without repercussion. Pete Stark is a disgrace, and no one with a memory thinks otherwise. He is just another in a long line of liberals who have insulted the men and women of our armed forces, feigned a half-hearted apology, and been allowed to continue serving. Not this time. Stark has made these sorts of remarks before outside of Congress, and his screed in a moment of intense debate reveals his true character. Having failed to censure Rep. Stark, the Republicans in the House should now shut down further business until an investigation of Stark is launched. There's no telling what sort of aid and comfort he has given to Al Qaeda. If Stark is willing to provide America's enemies valuable propaganda from the floor of Congress, his other activities should be intensely scrutinized. He has denigrated the CINC in time of war, insulted our troops, and aided the enemy.
>
Apology NOT accepted, Pete. Report to GITMO 'til the war's over.
>
JINGOCON

PETE STARK - CONGRESSIONAL TRAITOR

All Americans should be aware that Al Qaeda is listening very closely to what our leaders say. The terrorists will seize upon any evidence of division within our body politic as proof that their strategy is succeeding. Democraps are either ignorant of this fact or choose to ignore it, thereby providing propaganda for the enemy. The list of Dems who have made outrageous statements is endless: Harry Reid declaring the war lost, Dick Durbin comparing our troops to the German SS, John Kerry accusing our troops of "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children, Hussein Obama suggesting our strategy in Afghanistan is to bomb civilians. There has been no shortage of pro-Al Qaeda rants from the left. We should expect that from the party that is heavily invested in America's defeat. What was said yesterday on the floor of the U.S. House yesterday was more than a rant, and it demands immediate action.
>
Things got a little heated yesterday as the Dems attempted and failed to override the President's veto of SCHIP. Then California Representative Fortney "Pete" Stark took to the floor. Stark has been one of the most vocal opponents of the President and the war, and his verbal abuse of colleagues is legendary. This is the guy who in 1995 called Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut a "whore" for the insurance industry and suggested her knowledge of healthcare came from "pillow talk" with her doctor husband. That should give you some idea of his character. But what he said yesterday demands way more than an apology. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lTUB5_l0Mg.
>
The time has come for Republicans to stand against this sort of treachery. Stark has steadfastly refused to apologize, saying "I may have dishonored the commander in chief, but he's done pretty well to dishonor himself without any help from me." How long must we tolerate officials of the U.S. government aiding and abetting Al Qaeda? There is no other way to describe it. Rep. Stark is another in a long Democrap line rooting for the enemy, but this time the House Republicans should take immediate action. First, all Congressional business should be suspended until the Stark matter is addressed. Next, Republicans should bring a censure to the floor to nail down Dems. That censure should include the strongest condemnation language imaginable. But that's just the start. Republicans in Congress should make a defiant and lengthy stink about this to make sure voters see Stark is all his disloyal glory.
>
The Department of Justice should immediately begin an investigation of Stark and all his activities. Who knows what other support he is providing our terrorist enemies. What Stark said yesterday is the ultimate yelling of "FIRE" in a movie theater. Our enemies are listening intently. He is pushing toward the definition of enemy combatant.
>
Representative Stark has gone beyond free speech, beyond legitimate opposition, and beyond what should be tolerated. Like the rest of his pathetic party, Stark has morphed his rabid hatred for President Bush into attacks on our troops amounting to treason. Yeah, that's right, treason. Pete Stark is providing aid and comfort to the enemy, so I don't know what else it might be called. It's time for Republicans to put a stop to Al Qaeda sympathesizers. For my money, Stark should be in a cage at GITMO until the war is over. He is no better than anyone detained there, and perhaps even worse. He is a shining example of where the Democrat Party stands: with America's enemies. Pete Stark, SHUT UP HIPPY.
>
JINGOCON