JINGOCONSERVATIVE

CAP'N CRUNCH MURDERED

2011-03-09T20:10:00.002-05:00

HORATIO MAGELLAN CRUNCH, AGE UNKNOWN, OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, died March 9, 2011.
>
The circumstances of Horatio's birth are shrouded in mystery. His parents were Ms. Pamela Low, a flavorist, and Mr. Jay Ward of Jay Ward Studios. He was never married and had no children. His title was honorary, but his courageous leadership through the years in epic battles with Jean LaFoote and the Soggies earned him the undying respect of boys and girls the world over. The Cap'n was employed in advertising by the Quaker Oats Company from 1963 to the present. He was beloved by children and adults for "Crunch-a-tizing" their breakfasts and always leaving behind cereal-flavored milk. The Cap'n was the unquestioned king of all cereals from 1965 to 1971 and maintained a significant portion of the market to this day. He was instrumental in bringing many wonderful new cereals to the public, including Crunch Berries, Peanut Butter Crunch, Oops All Berries, the legendary Polar Crunch and many more. The Cap'n delivered innumerable bowls of sweetness to teenagers in need. His achievements in the cereal world are simply unmatched.
>
Cap'n Crunch was brutally murdered by First Lady Michelle Obama and the food police as part of their campaign to tell us all what to eat and what not to eat. The Cap'n was taken from us in his prime and he will be sorely missed by the sugar-deprived masses of the world.
>
The Cap'n leaves behind the crew of the Guppy (Alfie, Brunhilde, Carlyle, and Dave) and his trusty canine Sea Dog.
>
No memorial services will be conducted. Fans should enjoy another box of Crunch to say their final farewell before it disappears completely from our store shelves. Now we will have nowhere to turn for the crunchy deliciousness the Cap’n provided for many years.

CANISTER SHOT #1

2011-03-07T18:53:00.004-05:00

072000ZMAR11
>
1. ISAF COMMANDER GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS appeared on FNC's "Special Report" in the beginning of an interview that will be spread out through the week. Speaking with Brett Baier, Petraeus offered a cautiously optimistic evaluation of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. He said Taliban progress has been halted in most provinces and reversed in some areas, pointing out Helmand and Kandahar provinces as areas where tough fighting has yielded "significant progress". When pressed on the issue of Taliban and Al Qaeda camps in Pakistan and the possibility of striking them, Petraeus deferred to the "policy makers" with a large smile.
His relationship with Afghan President Karzai has not exactly been wine and roses lately. General Petraeus allegedly pointed out to Karzai that some Afghan parents burn the hands and feet of their children to present them as civilian casualties in order to be compensated. Karzai has rejected a personal apology from General Petraeus for the killing of nine boys ages 8 to 14 who were collecting firewood and were mistaken for insugents by a helicopter in Kunan province, calling it not enough. The Afghan president has done a lot of crying and wailing over this incident, clearly a terrible mistake no one intended. Karzai doesn't seem to make nearly as much noise about Al Qaeda and the civilian deaths they purposefully inflict on a daily basis.
>
2. SECDEF GATES arrived in Kabul today, greeted by a joke about Libya from General Petraeus that was picked up on microphones. Like with nearly every other subject, the media have no sense of humor about international politics. This SECDEF continues to do great damage to the security of our nation with his ill-advised comments. Quite frankly, Mr. Gates needs to shut up. After his incredibly irresponsible February 25 speech at West Point declaring the majority of the globe off limits to future American military action, he today issued an unequivocal statement rejecting any possibility of U.S. ground troops being used in Libya. His comments bring comfort to our enemies by reassuring them of a free hand in most areas. The SECDEF simply cannot go around the world drawing lines determining any possible future use of American force. It is no less than providing free intelligence to America's enemies. Mr. Gates should be fired if he cannot refrain from making future policy pronouncements. Our security is damaged each day he continues in his current position. He has glibly allowed Congress to freely and haphazardly hack at the Pentagon budget in time of war. His retirement to civilian life cannot come soon enough.
>
3. DEAR CHRIS MATTHEWS: Your show is hard to watch. Let me start with a few good things about it, which may explain why I even bother. Your show is clearly the best on a network I consider largely unviewable. Occasionally the debates are interesting enough to warrant a short viewing stint. I accept that you are a Democrat, I'm aware of your past work, and I accept that. Now let me point out the problems. Your constant portrayal of conservatives as racist, homophobic, "birther" Christian zealots is annoying to say the least. Conservatives and/or the Republican Party is no more homogenous than the Democrats. This may come as a shock to you, but the GOP is a party generally united in philosophy, while the Democrat party is a collection of interest groups united in desire for bigger government. Your obsessive hatred for Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachman is getting scary. Your face turns a bright red whenever her name is mentioned. You eviscerate the far right for thinking President Obama is some sort of "Manchurian candidate", yet you have no problem applying that exact term to Representative Bachman. Tonight you said she looked "hypnotic" and "trance-like" while your liberal buddy Jonathan Capehart said she "meanders". Let me help you gentlemen out with this: she is simply refusing to accept the leftist premise of the questions asked of her and is making her own points. I know you guys hate it when conservatives won't play along your game. And you really need more conservatives to participate. A bunch of liberals yukking it up and patting each other on the back while agreeing with each other is not a debate and is not even mildly entertaining. By continuing to display the degree of disdain, disregard, and wild stereotyping of conservatives you have so far, you are severely limiting your potential audience. I guess it's fine if preaching to the choir is your career goal. I personally would watch more often and for longer periods if it were a bit more fair. I expect some slant, Chris, just not that far. I actually like to watch when it's decent to hear the ideas of the other side. That way I know what I'm against.
>

JINGOCON MANIFESTO

2011-02-28T19:33:00.002-05:00

“We fight neither for revenge for conquest; neither from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the characters of Highwaymen and Housebreakers, and having no defense for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter.”
>
Thomas Paine – Common Sense
>
"JINGO" WORD HISTORY: “Jingo” was originally an interjection used as a conjurer’s incantation or as an excited utterance in place of something more risqué. “Jingo” acquired most of its current meaning in Great Britain during the Russo-Turkish War of the late 1870s. We apparently have British secularist George Holyoake to thank for the first use of “jingo” as a political label. He used the term in a letter penned to the Daily News on March 13, 1878. Holyoake was referring to a popular patriotic music hall song of the time, “By Jingo”, written by G.W. Hunt. The song 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 derogatory term applied to anyone deemed too nationalistic or aggressive in foreign policy. Theodore Roosevelt was labeled a “jingoe” by his foreign policy critics, to whom he responded in an 8 October 1895 interview in (of all places) the New York Times: "There is much talk about 'jingoism'. If by 'jingoism' they mean a policy in pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common sense insist upon our rights being respected by foreign powers, then we are 'jingoes'."
>
Now the term is used like a vile curse by the defeatist and pacifist 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 had shifted in favor of "staying on offense" and high levels of American involvement abroad. The Obama administration has America in full retreat. The jingoist will rightly tell you America has no choice but to remain aggressive at all times lest we invite attack. The world is full of enemies and potential enemies. Evil men will surely succeed if good men do nothing, and that, my friends, is not debatable.
>
MODERN AMERICAN CONSERVATISM: Largely sculpted by President Ronald Reagan, “conservatism” in the sense used here centers around four basic ideas:
>
1. STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE: The United States of American must maintain unquestioned military superiority. Any perceived or actual weakness invites aggression.
>
2. SMALLER GOVERNMENT: Government at all levels is too large, inefficient, and subject to waste and abuse. Efforts to increase the size and scope of especially the federal government should be opposed.
>
3. 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 efficientl and less intrusive when taxes are kept low.
>
4. 2ND AMENDMENT: The individual right to bear arms is a cornerstone of American freedom and is constitutionally guaranteed. Two recent Supreme Court cases (Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago) have affirmed that right. Free citizens should not be forced by local government regulations to seek the permission of police or government agencies to buy, sell, trade, own, or bear arms for self-defense.
>
BASIC FOREIGN POLICY 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 an aggressive 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, naval or elite forces alone.
>
5. The United Nations should be dismantled if it refuses reform. 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 States should not participate in or fund international agencies other than those whose members are republican allies. International law should never be used as a basis or means of adjudicating 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 significantly and frequently increased. American military 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 and prison terms. Priority for legal immigration should be given to democratic allies.
>
9. A thriving 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 permissible. Enemy combatants taken prisoner should be held under the Geneva Conventions as prisoners of war, and given the rights and confinement circumstances therein prescribed. No trials of any kind should be conducted, nor are any prisoner exchanges or releases possible. Guantanamo Bay should continue to be the main holding facility for enemy prisoners. All prisoners should be held until the conclusion of hostilities without regard to the length of time that may require.
>
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 republican governments should be encouraged and supported. The extent to which the United States should militarily support democratic movements should be commensurate with the will of the foreign citizens involved and their own ability to assist and function.
>
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. Drastically 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. Ballistic missile defense is vital to U.S. national security and should never be the subject of concession or negotiation.
>
15. The United States should take a firm stance against the hostile communist regime in North Korea. Every reasonable effort should be made to foment rebellion within the country. No concessions of any kind should be made, especially regarding direct or six party talks with North Korea. No further food or humanitarian aid of any kind should be provided to North Korea, as it will be commandeered by the government instead of being distributed to the populace. Aid only bolsters the North Korean dictator(s) and encourages further misbehavior. North Korea should be warned that any attack on American forces in South Korea will result in a full retaliatory response. The President should strongly and publicly pressure China to exert whatever control they may have over North Korea to force more polite conduct on their part. North Korea should not be allowed to mandate events by threatening or actually engaging in military operations of any kind.
>
16. Iran is the main state sponsor of terror, and the regime now in power should be treated as a mortal enemy of the United States. Every effort to protest and resist by the Iranian people should be publicly and covertly supported to the maximum extent. Iran has for decades sponsored terrorist groups and attacks throughout the world, providing weapons, training and funding. Their role in terrorist attacks against Americans is undisputed and stretches back to the 1970s. Iran has been directly involved in the killing of American diplomats and military personnel abroad and has provided advanced armor penetrating IEDs to Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons program cannot be allowed to produce a deliverable weapon. The risk of Iran turning a nuclear weapon over to their terrorist allies for use against the United States or Israel is too great to allow. If Iran refuses to cooperate with international efforts to monitor their nuclear program, military action to disable their weapons program should be taken at the earliest opportunity.
>
17. The United States of America should take every measure necessary to support the nation of Israel. They are the only republic in the region and are under constant threat from terrorist forces, most of which are supported by Iran. Israel should be publicly supported in any action it deems vital to its national security. Any effort to internationally condemn or isolate Israel for military action taken in its own defense should be thwarted.
>
18. Africa is a vital front in the war against international terrorism. All reasonable effort should be made to assist allied nations with economic and military development.
>
19. Piracy on the high seas cannot be tolerated. All pirate vessels should be sunk immediately without regard to crew. Any pirate attack on any U.S. or allied commercial or military vessel should result in an immediate and overwhelming response.
>
20. It should at all times be clear to foreign powers that the United States of America will defend its interests and its citizens by peaceful negotiation first, but by force if necessary.
>
WHAT JINGOCONSERVATISM IS NOT: 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 or occupy any foreign land. American troops are always liberators and we do not "occupy" other nations.
>
THE FUTURE OF OUR GREAT NATION is in mortal jeopardy. Our enemies abroad grow stronger and more numerous with each passing hour while the Obama administration has the United States in full international retreat. This President does not like or understand our armed forces, and it would be difficult to imagine a set of circumstances under which he would properly apply the force of the American military in a timely manner. Now is not the time for the United States to retreat on any front. Only by remaining aggressive and belligerent when necessary can America guard against attacks at home. A posture of weakness and vacillation will insure that our vital interests will be damaged and that our armed forces and citizens will be killed.

10 REASONS TO VOTE CONSERVATIVE NOVEMBER 2

2010-11-01T19:28:00.003-04:00

At the conclusion of the 2008 election, I made a philosophical decision to be fair to our new President. I had held my nose and voted for John McCain, if only in recognition of his service and time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Sarah Palin’s presence on the ticket made the vote a little easier, but Senator McCain was and is the sort of so called “centrist” Republican I cannot tolerate. We’ve seen this sort of politician for a long time in Washington. McCain and others campaign on fairly conservative principles, but govern with an accommodation for liberal initiatives that compromises principle. I constitutionally reject the limits on free political speech imposed in Senator McCain’s signature legislation, not to mention how absurd it is for any sane person to cosponsor legislation with Russ Feingold. I was never comfortable with McCain, but I respect his service to our nation. Despite his sins, I knew Senator McCain was light years closer to me politically than Obama.
I could not bring myself to vote for Mr. Obama. He has never served in the United States military, he has never met a payroll or run a business of any size, he had not previously shown superior political acumen, nor had he served in an executive or command position in any organization of any size prior to his election. His adult life had consisted of being a law professor, Illinois state representative, and “community organizer”. I still do not clearly comprehend what “community organizer” means: how large a community, and organized to what degree and for what purpose?
More disconcerting at the time were Obama’s friends and associates. He sat for years in the pew of a church where the good Reverend Wright was spewing anti-American and racist statements. Many of his associates were and are former 1960s hippies with a decidedly anti-American and especially anti-military bent. Mr. Obama did not meet any of the qualifications I personally have set for potential Presidents of the United States. The duties of the President are limited, but chief among them is his role as Commander In Chief of the finest fighting force the world has ever known. It is not a position I would prefer anyone to assume without some measurable form of leadership experience and at minimum some familiarity with our armed forces.
I knew in my heart the results of a liberal Democrat administration would not be positive. Higher taxes and astronomical levels of federal spending always create the same result, and we’ve been down this road before. The Obama administration has not surprised me and shown itself to be at best generally incompetent and misguided. None of the foreign policy or domestic policy initiatives pursued by this White House has achieved the intended result, and in most cases the President’s actions have exacerbated the situation. I was deeply and personally offended by President-elect Obama’s disgraceful joking reference to séances and former First Lady Nancy Reagan, and still am.
Now we face the 2010 midterm elections. Whatever problems the nation has are owned by the current administration, and the people are about to pass their judgment on this President and his policies. We have seen in our nation not a Republican, but rather a conservative ascendency. The Tea Party support for smaller government, lower taxes, and constitutionally limited government is a welcome phenomenon, but to be honest they are finally where I have been politically for more than twenty years. No matter how hard the Democrats strive to make this election an assortment of local races, it is in fact a national referendum on President Obama and the Democrat leadership in Congress. All the numbers point to a lopsided Republican victory resulting in GOP control of the House and possibly the Senate. We shall see, but it is essential to send this President a clear and resounding message of dissatisfaction.
There is not a single policy on which I agree with President Obama. Below I have condensed my opposition into ten salient points. This is the sum of why I believe voters should send new conservative blood to Washington.

10. The Obama administration repeatedly demonstrates puzzling tone deafness toward the American people and their concerns in the midst of historically bad economic conditions. The most glaring examples concern the Presidents poorly managed vacations. Americans generally do not begrudge their Chief Executive ample time out of Washington. All but the propagandists on either extreme realize that the President of the United States is never really “on vacation” as most of us might be. Photo-op activities aside, the President is always in touch and in command. National security communications are maintained at all times. Obama, however, seems to have an uncanny knack for picking the most highbrow spots on the map for his respites. He spent a single overnight in Florida after telling all of us to come on down to the Gulf and spend our hard-earned tourist dollars, and then promptly retreated to Martha’s Vineyard for ten days. That would not be at all unusual or even marginally notable, were he actually from that region, or if the American economy weren’t swirling down the drain. Those ravaged by the current economy are in no mood to see their public officials wallowing in extravagance at taxpayer expense. Ridiculously high taxes imposed by every level of a constantly expanding government and the loss of millions of jobs despite record amounts of federal spending have not surprisingly created a sour mood in middle America. Surely the highly skilled media masters who so skillfully ran the President’s 2008 unicorns and rainbows campaign cannot now be as oblivious to the mood of the country as their management of his time away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue so far would indicate. The First Lady’s trip to Spain accompanied by a large entourage of buddies staying in swanky digs while using a courtesy call to the King as cover was more politically damaging to Obama than his advisors may have realized. The mainstream media never understood that all the while they were downplaying the issue and offering their undying devotion to Michelle, they were playing more video of the trip. It wasn’t the fact of the trip’s existence, it was the way it looked to those hurting in a deep recession. Meanwhile, the President was staying alone in Chicago. W spent plenty of time in Crawford, but it was his home. Perhaps expecting Obama to clear brush on a ranch is too high a hurdle, but his vacation planners need help. His ten days in New England would have been much better spent in the Gulf of Mexico. Just imagine all the money the stampeding hordes of fawning media could have brought to the local economy.

9. The President has an irrepressible urge to rashly comment on each and every issue at first opportunity, only to be forced to issue a second statement of “clarification” after the facts of the situation are known. He’s acquired a first class sticky wicket in the Ground Zero mosque controversy. The smartest political move for him would have been to follow the American people and say that while he fully supports the right of those involved to build, also suggest that since placing a mosque at that location would do more to inflame passions than build cultural bridges, it would be best to change the location. Instead, the President stands up at a White House Ramadan dinner and offers full support for the building of the mosque to great applause. The next day he further couched his original statement by saying he wasn’t commenting “on the wisdom” of building at that location. It is a recurring theme with this guy: make a bold, unequivocal statement only to be forced to partially or fully retract it later. This sort of equivocation is not a virtue for the leader of the free world in time of crisis when overseas ears are tuned in his direction. We saw this same pattern early in his administration when he accused Cambridge, Massachusetts, police of acting “stupidly” in the arrest of a Harvard professor. “Beer Summit”, anyone? Lost in all the nonsensical conversation about race was the fact that the nation’s chief law enforcer was openly criticizing police and defending an arrestee without fully knowing the facts of the case. Here again it was a local matter that did not require Presidential intervention. Staying out of an issue or two might finally give the President enough time to “focus like a laser” on the economy as promised.
There cannot be any but malevolent and triumphalist intent behind building yet another New York City mosque that close to Ground Zero. Ignorance of that intent indicates a suicidal political correctness and a wishful denial of reality, and the media’s coverage of the issue is well beyond reprehensible. They formulated a template early on to apply to those opposing the mosque: “hateful”, “racist” and “Islamophobic” are the terms applied most often. Is it “hateful” to oppose the establishment of a victory monument near the site of the worst attack on America in our history, and when did Islam become a race? The media decided early on to make the debate about the First Amendment. They refused to acknowledge any concerns outside that limited scope. They would not investigate or question the source of funding or the individuals involved. The concerns of the families who lost loved ones on September 11th, for whom the area is both a graveyard and a memorial, have been callously disregarded. It’s simply another issue where the President holds a view that is in the minority. Attacking and demonizing the majority is seldom a very persuasive argument, but this administration resorts to it frequently.

8. Traditional allies of the United States have deep and legitimate concerns regarding the leadership of this President. Part of Obama’s 2008 campaign was his belittling of George W. Bush for his alleged inability to conduct successful diplomacy, a specious charge to hurl at a wartime President in any event. Are any of our remaining traditional friends fully confident in the foreign or military policy stewardship of this White House? Do any of them really think they can rely on unambiguous support or assistance should they need it in future time of crisis or need? Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have practiced foreign policy in the style of Old Europe: diplomacy first, last and always, concrete results be damned. Their diplomacy has become not a means to an end, but the end itself. Obama’s worldview sees diplomacy as a panacea that can cure all the ills of mankind if only people would listen and be nice to each other. It’s a childish and naïve view of the world that endangers American national security. We all wish that international relations were that simplistic, but the world outside America is full of evil men who wake up every day and stay up late at night plotting new and more terrible ways to kill Americans. Jetting around the world apologizing for America and literally bowing to foreign leaders hasn’t produced the instant waves of adulation and sustained planetary peace Obama apparently expected. In which area of the world has his foreign policy achieved even a discernibly positive track or outcome? It certainly isn’t working with Iran: their nuclear weapons development programs and threats against Israel and the United States continue unabated. The very same can be said of North Korea. Obama’s “outreach” to the Muslim world has produced no new allies and has not changed the battlefield environment for our troops or our few allies. Two years of global bootlicking simply isn’t working for him. Is he too dogmatic to realize policy failures, or is he not perceptive enough to see them? No matter where in the world you look, current and potential allies are unwilling to stick out their collective necks because they doubt the leadership and intestinal fortitude of this President. We sure don’t hear much from Foggy Bottom in the way of bold or innovative policy these days. There isn’t much to say when even your allies don’t know what to make of you and nothing you’ve attempted so far has been at all successful.

7. The President’s management of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster was disappointing and pathetic at best. It was another poorly managed and chronically mishandled crisis that stretched on longer and was made much worse than it would have been had he done absolutely nothing. The President refused to appeal for or accept foreign assistance, his comments concerning the spill were juvenile and inspired absolutely no one, and his administration’s initial response was to start pointing fingers and dispatching lawyers. The assignment of culpability for the incident and the public spanking of BP should have waited until all available resources were marshaled to stop the flow of oil into the Gulf. The few actions the President did take in a timely manner were counterproductive. Ask the oil rig workers thrown out of work for months thanks to Obama’s ridiculous deep water drilling ban. Forcing BP into coughing up $20 billion stretched executive power to the limit and beyond. Texas Representative Joe Barton was right: it was a shakedown. BP did not deserve Barton’s apology, but neither did Barton deserve to be tarred and feathered by his own party. In his own awkward way, Representative Barton made a germane point concerning the constitutional constraints on Presidential power. The GOP should have seized on that point, but it was lost on those driving to punish big business instead of offering full support in an emergency. It was sad to see the situation unfold day after agonizing day, even though it was somewhat gratifying to see the President finally take some real heat from the media. Had he received the full glare of the spotlight his ineptness deserved, the kitchen might have gotten a lot warmer. Fortunately for him the media had his back, as usual. President Obama is lucky the spill didn’t last any longer than it did: it was starting to become his media equivalent to Carter’s hostage crisis as the days were counted out and volume estimates for the spill varied widely. As soon as the flow of oil was stopped, so did the coverage and discussion. None of the elitist cocktail party liberals claiming to be actual reporters can bring themselves to offer even mildly negative coverage of this administration for long.

6. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the beginning of 2011 looms. In typical Democrat fashion, the President and his tax and spend minions will not miss the opportunity to handpick winners and losers. Obama peddles his tax increases using class warfare as liberals have done for decades. His acolytes in the media never mention that most small businesses file as individuals, and thus tax increases on the “rich” are increases largely on small businesses. Those very same small businesses are responsible for the bulk of new job creation, and right now they only see one certainty: a massive tax increase. Additional administrative requirements and Obamacare are already being shoved down their throat. Businesses large and small simply cannot predict what additional taxation and burdensome regulation they might face next. Little wonder businesses of all size are hoarding cash and keeping their investment power on the sideline for now. Gutless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi marched Congress out of town for fall recess without voting on extension of the cuts, an irresponsible and purely political move that denied voters an opportunity to know where their elected Representatives stand on the subject immediately before voting takes place. Obama has proposed an extension of the cuts only for those making less than $250,000 per year, a plan that ignores small businesses and can only worsen the economy. The Dems keep peddling the false notion that an extension of already existing cuts result in a “cost” to the government. If they can sneak that one by you, their next question usually regards how to “pay” for the extension. This is nothing but doublespeak. The cuts that are already in place represent revenues the government simply will not collect and not some form of expenditure. There is no formulation that requires them to be “paid” for: it is equivalent to asking an hourly employee how he plans to “pay” for the raise they never received. It is yet another hole in liberal logic that is continually peddled by the left as gospel truth. Current economic conditions do not allow for any further tax increase in any segment or on any individual regardless of income. The first order of business for a new Republican Congress should be to extend all of the cuts for at least five years, if not permanently.
It boils down to this: twice in the last fifty years or so, we have tried the small government, low taxes model, and twice now we have tried the big government, high taxes model. Both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan reduced taxes across the board and especially at the higher end. Both created massive job growth and actually increased revenues to the federal government. Jimmy Carter was a liberal big spender, and his policies created the “misery index” and malaise of the late 1970s. While it’s true that the national debt was sizable before Obama’s term, his rate of spending is nearly six times that of the last administration. Now over $13 trillion, we simply cannot sustain this rate of spending. Now he hopes to raise taxes to pay for his gargantuan federal government programs.
This administration’s record on the economy is abysmal, and the President owns it now. His recent admission that there is no such thing as a “shovel ready” job in a federal program is abhorrent. Obama used that phrase hundreds of times to sell his policies to the American people, and he now admits it simply doesn’t exist. What is he saying now to peddle his liberal dog food that he’ll have to confess later isn’t true?

5. President Obama’s Iraq speech broadcast live from the Oval Office was a colossal failure. It is abundantly clear this President would prefer to concentrate on domestic issues and that he sees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a distraction and nuisance. The speech was billed as a statement on the end of combat operations in Iraq. It became a laundry list that lacked a single statement regarding the proper use of American power, contained no inspiring words for the Iraqi people, and completely failed in tone and language. Here was a chance for a man who opposed the war and especially the surge to recognize the victory that was achieved despite his opposition. Operations in Iraq succeeded despite Joe Biden’s proposal to divide Iraq along ethnic lines, despite Harry Reid’s declaration that the war is “lost”, and despite a general lack of support for our armed forces displayed by the left and the Dems in Congress throughout the war. Most of them voted for the war resolution. They claim solidarity with the troops when it suits their political agenda, but for them that does not extend to providing financial and other support to American forces engaged in combat in a timely manner. Obama couldn’t even deign to say more than the minimum in recognition of George W. Bush, even though it was his steadfast resolve in the face of hateful and uninterrupted opposition that led to victory. This President is clearly in over his head in general, but especially when it comes to military policy. He missed an opportunity to rise above partisanship and fully recognize an American military victory achieved at great sacrifice to our armed forces. Adding comments on economic policy in this venue was inappropriate. Worse yet, Obama insinuated the war was partially responsible for current economic problems. The numbers simply don’t back that up, and he knows it.

4. President Obama is twenty months into the job, and he still isn’t man enough to take ownership of it. He went around the country less than two years ago begging for the position. His rhetoric was soaring, never mind the generalities. This guy really wanted to be President of the United States. Here we are nearly half way into his first term, and he’s still blaming Bush. It’s become something of a joke among regular folks: anything that goes wrong is satirically blamed on Bush. “It’s Bush’s fault,” has become a punch line. This administration needs to step up to the plate and accept responsibility. The Iraq War is not the cause of unemployment, despite Obama’s claims: his “stimulus” program cost more than the entire war. Obama has had long enough to enact whatever programs his lackeys in Congress could muster, and they simply haven’t worked. The blame is Obama’s. Every President inherits all kinds of problems from previous administrations, and at some point they have to take on the issue on and own it. Belly up to the bar, Mr. President.

3. Obamacare is an assault on liberty. See, you aren’t smart enough to care for yourself. You clearly need a large federal government to swaddle you and address your every physical, spiritual, and financial need from cradle to grave. The first step to achieving that system is to have the government take over health care. The flaws in this monstrosity are too many to list, so suffice to say it will hopefully be repealed by a Republican Congress at first opportunity. It would be a terrible burden for our doctors and nurses and an economic burden on the entire nation should it become fully functional. Its passage was rife with corruption, and polls now consistently show a strong majority in favor of repeal. We do have significant problems with our health care system, but they will be solved only by legislation that allows the free market to function with severely limited government interference and not by a socialization of the entire field. The last thing we need now is a federal government that is constantly expanding in size and scope.

2. President Obama is perilously close to losing the Afghanistan war. His insistence on a pinpoint date for withdrawal of American forces to satisfy the far left in his party only encourages the enemy to endure until we are gone. The diplomatic representatives he claims are so key to the effort have been completely useless and ineffective. He has not competently dealt with any of the problems presented by Pakistan, and we are unlikely to see any progress until something is done to stop the flow of men and weapons across the border and into Afghanistan. The danger of Paki nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Al Qaeda remains. Our Commander in Chief hasn’t even accurately defined what victory looks like. The only positive development in the war under this administration was the selection of General David Petraeus to lead allied forces in Afghanistan. Petraeus is a proven commander who led first the 101st Airborne Division and then all allied forces to victory in Iraq. He is the author of the Army counterinsurgency strategy, and if anyone can win this thing, it’s Petraeus. President Obama’s first step should be to define the terms of victory: Afghan government that can protect itself from internal and external threats, secure its borders to prevent Taliban insurgency, and prevent the country from becoming a base for Al Qaeda as it was before September 11th and the resulting American invasion. For our national interest, it need be no more complicated than that. Achieving even those limited goals would be a major accomplishment. The President should rescind his July 2011 date for withdrawal of American forces and instead declare that operations will continue until we are victorious. Otherwise the enemy will simply hole up and wait for our departure. A reasonable amount of time and effort should be expended to improve the situation in Pakistan, but if it fails, the President should be prepared to seize Paki nuclear weapons by force if necessary. What the war requires is an engaged President who is ready to take swift and decisive action for victory. Obama has not as of yet displayed any of those qualities. He does not have a broad, over-arching strategic vision for fighting terror. Our men and women engaged in combat with the enemy deserve better.

1. Iran is the top state sponsor of terror. Iran also has a nuclear weapons development program. Those two facts alone should have long ago prompted the entire world to unified action, but it has not. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to threaten the existence of Israel. Iran continues to sponsor Hamas forces in Lebanon firing rockets into Israel. Iranian weapons and military supplies have been found with terrorists in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran continues to hold two American hikers, now imprisoned over a year, and is threatening to put them on trial for espionage. The chronicles of Iranian funded and supported terrorist attacks on American military and civilians is lengthy and decades long. Is there any nation more likely to pass off a nuclear weapon to Al Qaeda or other terrorists?
President Obama is truly whistling past the graveyard when it comes to Iran. No amount of diplomacy will convince them to halt their support for terrorist causes or their drive for nuclear weapons. Waiting on Old Europe to take further action is a recipe for disaster.
The President is more than willing to set a deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but his diplomatic efforts toward Iran have no end. It’s time to set a deadline for Iran to comply with whatever paltry demands the United Nations can muster. If they ignore or fail to comply, the United States and our allies must take military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Failure to do so could result in the destruction of Israel or the vaporization of an American city.
The first priority of any American President is to protect the American people from foreign attack. Obama is directly endangering our national security by refusing to take any action whatsoever concerning Iran.

By early tomorrow evening we will know how high the expected conservative tidal wave will be and how far west it will roll. If the Senate race in West Virginia goes to the Republican, it will be possible for the GOP to take control of the Senate as well as the House. If we are lucky, there will be a period of gridlock in our nation’s capital and very little will be accomplished. We need Republicans to do their best to oppose and counter whatever this President attempts to enact. Considering what legislation has emerged from our Congress in the past several years, a little gridlock would be a welcome respite for the people.

A Few Thoughts On Guns

2009-08-19T23:17:00.004-04:00

I’ve been amused by the recent media reaction to citizens openly carrying firearms in states that still respect our constitutional right to do so. The vast majority of media folks are flaming liberals, so it’s really no surprise. Still, it’s odd that anyone in America would recoil from the mere presence of guns. I am probably in the minority when it comes to my view of the Second Amendment because I see it much more broadly than the Supreme Court recently indicated in District of Columbia v. Heller, a decision handed down last summer (full text HERE). In that landmark case, the Court said:

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

That essentially settles the basic argument for now. There are, however, many other ancillary arguments that remain unsettled. The left in America continually seeks to limit gun rights whatever the Supreme Court rules. As with the rest of our Constitution, we need to return to original intent to insure the freedoms inherent in our republic.

I am an unrepentant believer in the open carry of firearms. Any citizen who has not been convicted of a violent felony and is mentally stable should have the right to openly carry a weapon without permission from local law enforcement. The Second Amendment does not mandate prior permission from the government. Varying state laws in some cases severely restrict that right. Other states have laws in place that effectively negate open carry without expressly doing so. My state of Ohio, for example, permits open carry except in vehicles. I suppose that’s fine if one walks everywhere, but otherwise it is a loophole that contravenes the original law itself. We as American citizens have the right of self defense, and we should be able to exercise that right openly and without fear of harassment from police. The only reasonable restriction on open carry is banning them in establishments that serve alcohol or in government buildings, for obvious reasons. Many believe that schools and churches should also be included, but far too often we’ve seen citizens attacked in those places without recourse. Homicidal maniacs pick these places to launch their attacks because they know that no one will be armed. How many fewer people would have died if someone present had been armed and ready to end such an attack? An armed society would see far less crime, especially armed robberies and sexual assaults. Despite liberal beliefs to the contrary, guns do not cause crime and in fact in many cases would prevent it.

I completely and utterly reject the concept of concealed carry permits. Concealed carry is nothing less than concealed registration. It is merely another way for the government to compile lists of gun owners, another idea that clearly violates our Constitution. As mentioned above, Ohio requires a concealed carry permit to have a loaded weapon in a vehicle. This is a sneaky legal maneuver that makes open carry impractical. The Second Amendment does not contain the phrase “with licensing and registration”. Why should any citizen need the permission of the local sheriff to exercise a right guaranteed under the federal constitution? It strikes me as patently absurd and thoroughly unconstitutional. Ohio requires a training course for the concealed carry permit. Pardon me, Mr. Policeman, but as an eight year veteran of the United States Army, I do not need any further training and dare to say that I am far more proficient and far more accurate in the use of firearms than most members of law enforcement. I am reminded of the February 19, 1997, shootout between the two Kehoe brothers and Wilmington, Ohio, police officers. Numerous rounds were fired at a range of less than ten feet and no one was hit. Less glaring examples occur on a regular basis. Obviously there are those who may feel the need for training, but it should not be required for military veterans. Concealed carry permits are registration in disguise and clearly not within the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Prior to the DC v. Heller ruling, the continual march towards restricting individual gun rights had been steadily progressing. Each year we see further efforts to eviscerate Second Amendment rights by imposing more and more restrictions. The groups and individuals that support these measures are simply not comfortable with a basic American right. Many of them do believe that guns cause crimes, which is like saying flies cause garbage or that spoons make you fat. A gun is merely a tool. It is the intent of the user that matters. I have owned firearms for my entire adult life. I have never had to brandish one, much less use it, and I hope I never do. Should the day come, however, when my life or the safety of my family is in jeopardy, I certainly will want a gun for defense. Placing Draconian restrictions on gun ownership only makes the outlaw more powerful. Law abiding citizens are guaranteed the right of self defense, and that certainly cannot be accomplished with a stick. Whatever controls are enacted, the criminals will not adhere to them. Those who follow them are placed at risk.

It was strange to hear the recent reaction from the media to recent occurrences where citizens legally carried firearms to public protests. One would have thought these individuals were firing rounds into the air or perhaps were armed with nuclear missiles. The liberals doing the reporting displayed their unfamiliarity with firearms especially when attempting to describe the weapons themselves. Apparently they have not been around guns and are extremely uncomfortable in their presence. To their way of thinking, an armed citizen simply must be up to no good and is dangerous. They see an implied threat in the exercising of a guaranteed right. The unfortunate part is that their reactions sensationalize the story and substantiate a wholly unnecessary attitude. It’s really quite silly and a bit cowardly to my eyes.

Individual gun ownership has been an essential freedom in America since its inception. Our Founders saw it as important enough to be clearly included in the Bill of Rights. Those who are opposed are craven and would subject the citizenry to attack without defense. In closing, I’ll turn it over to three great Americans:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference . . ." - George Washington

"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!" – President Theodore Roosevelt's last message to Congress.

PAKISTANI NUKES: BIN LADEN'S NEXT SURPRISE?

2009-08-11T22:20:00.005-04:00

Once again today we have proof positive that the media is intriguingly selective about which stories it features. Today’s lead story was President Obama’s health care “town hall” conducted in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The meeting was a staged and planned event, packed with Obama supporters who already are in favor of the health care bill being considered by Congress. It played more like a campaign event than a discussion, and at one point Mr. Obama even had to seek out more questioners. This sort of stagecraft has become Obama’s trademark. Rarely does he face tough questions from either citizens or the media, and even more rarely without a teleprompter. What the media missed today is truly frightening and is the nightmare scenario for our strategic goals in Pakistan and thus Afghanistan.

A feature published in the Times of India reports that Pakistani nuclear installations have already been attacked three times by Islamic militants. You can see the article HERE. The gist of the report is this:

“The incidents, tracked by Shaun Gregory, a professor at Bradford University in UK, include an attack on the nuclear missile storage facility at Sargodha on November 1, 2007, an attack on Pakistan's nuclear airbase at Kamra by a suicide bomber on December 10, 2007, and perhaps most significantly the August 20, 2008 attack when Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers blew up several entry points to one of the armament complexes at the Wah cantonment, considered one of Pakistan's main nuclear weapons assembly.”

That is indeed an alarming report. It has to be considered the worst possible scenario for the situation on the ground in Pakistan. The President must consider it a grave threat both to our forces on the ground in the region and to the homeland. Of all situations that currently exist, it is the one most likely to result in a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of Al Qaeda. Pakistan has made recent gains against militants on its territory, but this is another animal entirely.

The administration has been extremely negligent in handling the situation in Pakistan. Less than a month ago, July 20th, we were assured by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Pakistan’s nuclear command and control were “well managed”. Now that turns out to be somewhat of an overstatement to put it mildly. Either the administration was unaware of the attacks, a grossly negligent position, or kept them secret, in which case absolutely no action has been taken. Congress left for summer recess without approving further aid for the Pakis despite Obama’s insistence that he would be reaching out to the Muslim world with more economic assistance. It seems his health care plan is more important than loose nuclear weapons. Of course, we won’t need as big a health care program if millions of Americans are dead as the result of a nuclear weapon being detonated here at home. I personally warned of the circumstances involving Paki nukes on December 27, 2007, when I wrote:

“The idea of a modern nuclear arsenal complete with delivery vehicles in the hands of Al Qaeda is too apocalyptic to ignore….. Musharraf is all we have in Pakistan. He may be a military dictator, but the alternative is even less acceptable. And since our primary concern is the nuclear arsenal, we really have no choice but to back him for now.”

Politicians on both sides of the aisle ignored those concerns, helped to depose Musharraf, and that ignorance is now coming home to roost. Unfortunately for us, the roost may be a nuclear missile silo.

The problems with Paki nukes are abundant. Pakistan originally deployed their nuclear weapons facilities in places far from the border with India to avoid them being taken in a sudden armored thrust. The result now is that these facilities are mostly in the heart of areas thick with Taliban. Paki nuclear security is based on a U.S. model:

“a) physical security;
b) personnel reliability programs;
c) technical and procedural safeguards; and
d) deception and secrecy.”

That’s all well and good, but I’m not convinced, and neither should the President be comfortable. All it takes is one security breach to put the world’s most dangerous weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda. While Obama peddles his health care initiative, a measure completely outside the scope of the federal government, his primary role as Commander In Chief goes unattended.

The President should take immediate action to further secure Pakistani nuclear weapons and facilities. Relying on the Pakis to do it is unacceptable. The security of those weapons immediately and directly impacts American national defense. Mr. Obama should take immediate and concrete measures to further bolster the security measures already in place. Deploying additional American military personnel should be considered in consultation with the leadership of Pakistan. If the Pakis resist, Mr. Obama must fulfill his role as CINC and seize them lock, stock, and barrel if necessary. The future security of our troops and civil population demand no less. His administration is quickly becoming the whistle past the graveyard gang. I would hope the Pentagon will make the case for action to him if he does not see it clearly. Once a nuclear weapon is taken by Islamic militants, the horrific multitude of possibilities will make his negligence and inattention a truly fatal mistake.

NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

2009-08-11T01:08:00.005-04:00

I started wondering several weeks ago about our Declaration of Independence. I thought about it for a long while, and wondered what it would look like if it were rewritten today and addressed our own federal government. The feds have become abusive under Presidents and Congresses of both parties. Of course I am absolutely not calling for the violent overthrow of the government, but rather a new constitutional convention to address the abuses of our current government. I now present my updated version:

When in the Course of national events, it becomes necessary for people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers only from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience shows, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of citizens of the United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present American government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the citizens. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have entered into entangling alliances with foreign powers;

They have joined international organizations that are not equitably financed and repeatedly attempt to usurp our national sovereignty;

They have placed an unbearable tax burden on the people, largely without consent;

They have allocated for themselves exorbitant salaries and benefits far and above the means of the populace;

They have entered into trade pacts that have decimated American manufacturing;

They have accumulated debts that cannot be paid for many generations;

They have interfered in commerce and distorted the free markets;

They have ignored our federal Constitution and our state Constitutions;

They have usurped the power of the States to govern their own people;

Governors have called together state legislative bodies at places unusual and uncomfortable for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with their dictates;

They have made illegal the right of the people to call for change of government;

They have refused to secure our borders and prevent illegal migration;

They have continually erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass the people, and eat out their substance;

They have compiled large quantities of information on the populace for unknown purposes;

They have refused to address our energy needs and forced the people to pay exorbitant sums as a result;

They have refused to impose term limits on themselves and have thus attempted to form an elite aristocracy;

They have either completely refused to prosecute or lightly punished those among them accused or convicted of malfeasance;

They have failed to properly compensate or provide care for our soldiers wounded in combat;

They have refused to constrain commercial monopolies, forcing the people to conduct business at unreasonable rates and in unusual ways;

They have limited our right to petition the government for redress of grievances;

They have hidden appropriation of large sums of money from the people;

They have limited the right of the people to keep and bear arms and have compiled lists of private armaments;

They have repeatedly violated the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searched and seizures;

They have abused the concept of eminent domain;

They have violated the people’s freedom of religion by threatening to tax religious leaders who speak of political matters;

They have disparaged the right of the people to retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution;

They have sought to reinforce and support despotic foreign powers;

They have abdicated their responsibility to protect American citizens abroad.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only with repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyranny, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our government. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by them to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our founding. We have appealed to their justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common history. They have been deaf to the voices of justice. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in war, in peace, friends.

We, therefore, the people of the United States, by authority of the good people of this nation, solemnly publish and declare, that these states are, and of right ought to be, free and independent; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the federal government, and that all political connection between them is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have the full power to call for a new Constitutional Convention to correct the abuses and usurpations heretofore enumerated. And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

THE DEATH OF ENGAGEMENT

2009-08-09T18:18:00.006-04:00

I’m done attempting to engage the left. It’s a complete waste of time and effort. No matter which forum you choose, the effort is pointless. There is a great mass of the American people who are not interested in legitimate political debate of any kind. They are so convinced of the wisdom of their thinking that they refuse to allow anything close to adult conversation about it. There are some on the right, but the vast majority are on the left. Take a look any place where people can freely post their political opinions. You will repeatedly see the same thing: liberals who cannot spell or use proper grammar boldly claiming complete intellectual superiority, name-calling, and using profanity to express their juvenile and underdeveloped thoughts. They cannot justify or offer a rational explanation of their opinions for good reason: they are based on emotion rather than logic.

Most of the left wallows in a sense of entitlement. They believe they should be taken care of, preferably by a government bureaucracy. They think the world owes them something. Many of them are very young and have grown up in an America where they are not permitted to fail, where their every effort is bolstered and supported by doting parents or the government. They have no sense of history or of America’s special role in the world. They are only vaguely aware of what freedom means and the sacrifices that have been made to achieve and maintain it. They have been programmed to instantly give a knee-jerk reaction to anything that might upset their comfortable lifestyle or require some sacrifice or effort on their part.

My grandfather was a wise man, a lifelong Republican, and a man of very few words. He passed away in 1988. When he found out I had voted in my first presidential election in 1984, he said, “Huh. You ain’t a Democrat, are you?” I was proud to inform him that I had voted for Ronald Reagan. He told me that when it comes to debate, always remain calm, polite, and civil. He knew that the left would rarely do so and would attempt to drag others down into the mud with them, and thus would make the correct points all on their own. I never knew exactly what he meant until after he died, but I wish I had been able to tell him how correct he was. The left in America regularly touts how smart they are, yet can’t understand how debate should properly function in America.

Recent events demonstrate this more than ever. The Democrat response to significant opposition to the health care reform bill is a perfect example. Those who dare question the Obamessiah are called Nazis, plants, paid agents, or mobs. There is no retort on the relevant issues, just name-calling. Union thugs are called in to apply force. This will backfire in the long run. Conservatives are the wrong crowd to attempt to force into anything, especially something that relates to basic American freedoms. The liberals are overreaching as usual and do not understand why people refuse to go along and drink their vile Koolaid. Those who won’t kowtow immediately have a label applied to them in an effort to diminish and dismiss their opinions. Imagine the response from the left had the Bush administration called for citizens to report those who opposed the Iraq War to the White House. It would have been overwhelming, yet the very same individuals see nothing wrong in the Obama administration doing the same in the health care debate. American liberals have become what they so often in the past decried: an oppressive force that squashes debate and stands for the diminishment of basic rights under the Constitution.

I believe we are reaching a tipping point in American history. The forces of intolerance and suppression are largely on the left. Americans will soon have to make a choice between maintaining a government by and for the people and socialist domination. During the Cold War, we heard a lot about the “convergence theory” first proposed by Dutch economist Jan Tinbergen in the 1960s. Tinbergen’s theory hypothesized that capitalist and communist systems would gradually move toward one another until they became indistinguishable. It seemed rather unlikely at the time, but it now looks possible. The socialist or communist nations are allowing more and more capitalist reform, while America attempts to emulate the already statist European nations. Most Americans no longer bother to vote or participate in political functions. Tired of scandals and the heat of the rhetoric, they retire languidly to their televisions and other material possessions, blissfully unaware that they can lose it all in an instant.

I hope the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress continue on their current path and continue to use Chicago-style methods in an attempt to force their agenda on the public. The reaction in 2010 and 2012 will be overwhelming. Next summer will be the crucial time. Americans who still believe in the freedoms we used to enjoy as given should descend on Washington in great numbers in a peaceful demonstration of public disdain. It will be the only way to avoid significant violence in our future. The voices on both sides are becoming louder. That is a bad omen when the argument is between the forces of freedom and the minions of oppression.

The Democrats have made their bed, and I for one expect them to lie in it. I will no longer attempt to convince any of them of anything. They are unreachable. They have been so brainwashed that they are beyond discussion or debate. Only the public can make the changes necessary to insure that our Constitution is not shredded in an effort to impose socialist systems on all of us. The duty of all conservatives has to be to reach out to those in the middle and attempt to explain the threat to essential freedoms posed by the radical left. That threat was dismissed by the center in the last election. Perhaps now it has become more substantive and clear.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer have today posted an op-ed in the USA Today, and it is the most outrageous, steaming piece of political crap I have ever seen. You can read it for yourself here. Pelosi and Hoyer refer to the recent opposition to their attempt to socialize medicine as "un-American". Well, sir and madam, allow me to point out what is REALLY un-American.

It's un-American for a well-heeled group of elitists to take over Congress and refuse to even read the bills they are voting on, all the while looking down their nose at the citizenry. It is un-American for members of Congress to be paid outrageous salaries and take repeated and unnecessary political junkets at taxpayer expense. It is un-American for either of you to dismiss legitimate attempts to engage members of Congress on an issue that will effect every single citizen. It is un-American for Congress to sit upon their high horse and refuse to be placed in the same health care pool they are mandating for everyone else. It is un-American for Congress to impose statist conditions on a nation founded on the idea of personal freedom. It is un-American for Congress to place themselves over and above the American people. It is un-American for Congress to recklessly spend money and accumulate deficits that cannot be paid immediately. It is un-American for Congress to trample roughshod over the rights of the citizens without listening to and hearing their concerns.

I have never been more angry at Congress or the Democrat Party. These are the same people who cried long and hard whenever they felt their patriotism was being questioned, yet they are doing exactly that to their opponents now. What I feel like doing I cannot put in print. What should be done to these charlatans cannot be put in print. The time has come for the American people to take action. My tolerance for them is over and done. They are snobbish boors who have lost all touch with reality and think they can mandate to us poor peasants. Tarring and feathering would be too good for them. There isn't a rail long enough on which to ride them out of town. Representatives Pelosi and Hoyer, you have made the biggest mistake of your political career, and if your constituents can't see you for the complete asses you are, they deserve you.

BIG BROTHER OBAMA

2009-08-05T22:28:00.002-04:00

The White House release a statement yesterday entitled "Facts Are Stubborn Things" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/).

Among other things it said: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Really? Asking citizens to inform the White House about the free speech of other Americans? What kind of fascist crap is that? What exactly are they going to do?

Here, let me take my shot: The Obama health insurance plan will use taxpayer money for elective abortions, require "end of life" counseling, and put an end to private health insurance as we know it.

Now what? Are you going to arrest me for my political speech? Please, Mr. President, make me famous. I'm begging you. Just respond to this posting and I'll give you all my information: name, home address, ssn, and even my (gasp!) blog where you can find even more statements against your proposed health plan as well as your other policies. How dare I speak out against you! It's outrageous, you should have the G-men scoop me up immediately.

SUNDAY SCRAMBLE

2009-08-02T20:05:00.008-04:00

PALIN DIVORCE RUMORS: Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had to shoot down rumors of divorce this weekend. This is simply more proof of the liberal media’s efforts to torpedo her future, and it will fail like all the rest. They have attacked her appearance, her children, and now her marriage. At long last, media, have you no decency? It seems there is no end to their campaign of smear and denigration. Rather than cast aspersions on Palin, it tells us more about the liberals and how much they want to discredit her. They are desperate to belittle her rising star and have no qualms about using whatever means are at their disposal.

NERVY BRITS: Several new public opinion polls came out in Britain this past week suggesting British support for the war in Afghanistan is waning. No surprise, given the parliamentary “foreign affairs select committee” spending their time criticizing nearly every part of the war. The committee even had the audacity to question whether or not the Taliban represent a threat to western security. Now some are suggesting we should talk to the Taliban (see below). That sort of forgetfulness makes one wonder if we really do have any reliable allies anywhere in the world. Afghanistan was supposed to be the war for which everyone was on board for the long haul. Now even the Brits, who I used to consider the least likely to jump ship when the going gets tough, are carping and complaining. It also makes one fear for the long term future of democratic society. Imagine the reaction from the Brits later this month when Afghanistan NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal tells President Obama and the rest of the alliance that a further troop surge will be necessary. NATO troop numbers in Afghanistan are deceptive, with most forces deployed around Kabul or in the north, far away from actual combat. Check out the map here and see for yourself. A leaked memo sent to all British Army units revealed in the media today suggests the Brits are struggling with soldiers that are obese or out of shape. That follows a similar German report several months ago that also bemoaned the amount of beer the Germans are consuming.

NATO will become an essentially useless alliance if it cannot fulfill its primary credo that an attack against one is an attack against all. The alliance has shown in Afghanistan that it may be headed that direction. If we cannot count on allied support in fighting Al Qaeda and those who harbored them, what exactly is the point of continuing to support the alliance? It may be trendy to add new eastern European nations, but why bother if the alliance is hollow? Members have drug their feet in supporting operations in Afghanistan since the onset of the conflict. The statements of support following September 11th now ring somewhat hollow in light of their reluctance to deploy significant numbers of combat troops in areas where they might actually be helpful. It’s time for our NATO allies to stop the complaining and get in the fight or risk going the way of the United Nations.

NEGOTIATE WITH THE TALIBAN ?: Chatter about trying to talk with the Taliban has increased in recent weeks, especially from the Brits. There is a huge difference between flipping some local Taliban and actually engaging Taliban leadership. The Taliban had their chance to govern, and it was a nightmare for the Afghan people and for the rest of the world. They cannot be folded into the Afghan government. Even more outrageous was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s support for such a traitorous idea while at a joint appearance last Wednesday with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Have they both gone mad? Miliband suggested such an approach last Monday in a speech at NATO headquarters, further bringing the alliance’s worth into question.

The only way the Taliban should be “engaged” is with automatic weapons.

HOW LONG, ISRAEL ?: Israel will not wait forever to take action against Iran’s nuclear program. While the Obama administration talks sanctions and continues attempts to negotiate, the Iranians continue their threats against Israel and their march toward deliverable nuclear weapons. President Obama is attempting the same, tired old strategy of negotiating and promising moot sanctions that hasn’t worked for the last six years. It’s difficult to see what he thinks can be gained. He refused to offer any support to the demonstrators in Iran, perhaps in fear of damaging his efforts. The Obama administration has consistently delivered a mixed message on Iran, simultaneously declaring a fully nuclear Iran “unacceptable” while also vowing to protect the rest of the region should Iran achieve a functional nuclear weapon. Which is it, Mr. President?

It is clear Israel will not wait forever, nor should they be expected to do so. Iran has openly and directly threatened their existence. After SECDEF Gates’ recent visit, rumors flew that the U.S. had asked Israel to wait at least eight more weeks. Whether those rumors are true or not, the clock is clearly ticking, and no doubt that ticking is heard loudest in Tel Aviv. Mr. Obama should set a deadline for negotiations to begin in earnest. If the Iranians ignore the deadline, he should begin planning in earnest for a military strike that while obviously dangerous, may be the least risky option of all.

HOSTAGE SITUATIONS: The Obama administration now has two hostage situations to deal with instead of just one. For nearly five months, North Korea has been holding two American female journalists accused of spying. Now Iran is reportedly holding three Americans taken from a poorly marked area of the Iran-Iraq border. Failing to act on either situation reflects very poorly on Mr. Obama and does nothing but encourage these two rogue nations to act out even more. Obama’s campaign promised a new era in U.S. foreign policy that would bring quicker resolution to any crisis. So far that has not been the case.

HILLARY GETS A PASS ON MTP

2009-07-26T14:06:00.005-04:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the exclusive guest on Meet The Press this morning. As expected, moderator and DNC favorite David Gregory conducted a softball interview that failed to ask a difficult or probing question even once. It was more like a casual conversation between two friends than a legitimate political interview. In fact, only the first twenty five minutes were relevant to Mrs. Clinton’s current position, with the rest devoted to her relationship to President Obama in light of the past campaign, health care, and several other items not germane to the chief of Foggy Bottom. Hillary was supremely unqualified to take the post, and her performance since doing so is a direct reflection of her complete inexperience in foreign policy matters. Of course, Gregory’s introduction of her was glowing, saying she had travelled over “100,000 miles” already, had “confronted North Korea”, and was “warning Iran”. The mileage may be correct, but the veracity ends there, unless you consider name-calling and parroting the soft Obama line on rogue nations confrontational.

Gregory started with North Korea. Mrs. Clinton and the North Korean government traded barbs this past week, with Hillary describing them as unruly children and the North Koreans making disparaging comments on her appearance. That hardly qualifies as the loftiest of diplomatic maneuvers. Gregory conveniently omitted the most biting of the North Korean comments, an early sign of the accommodating nature the rest of the interview would take. Hillary immediately referred to U.N. Resolution 1874, yet another weak and toothless measure in the parade of United Nations futility. She referred to the measure as “most stringent sanctions” and called for a return to negotiations. Talking may provide Hillary with a way to occupy her time, but recent history shows the North Koreans are not likely to make any concessions, cease their provocative rhetoric or actions, or use talks as anything other than a way to leverage more food and assistance. Mrs. Clinton seemed satisfied that “even Burma” was on board. Surely the North Koreans are trembling at the thought of the military colossus of Burma backing international sanctions. She conceded that the North Koreans are known proliferaters of nuclear technology, but refused to describe them as a legitimate threat to the United States, a glaring contradiction of terms given their willingness to sell to the highest bidder without regard to the nature of the buyer. Hillary touted U.S. missile defense, failing to mention the cuts already made and further cuts proposed by her boss. If that was supposed to reassure us all, it was a translucent attempt at best. Neither her husband’s administration nor the Bush administration responded effectively to North Korea, and it seems that trend will continue under Obama.

Reflecting the contradictory messages on Iran put forth by the Obama administration thus far, Mrs. Clinton then answered a series of questions about the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. Earlier this week while touring Asia, Hillary referred to an American “defense umbrella” that would allegedly thwart Iranian power should they actually achieve the production of a nuclear weapon. Not more than a minute later, she described the prospect of Iran gaining that technology as “unacceptable”. She unwittingly revealed the true administration policy on Iran by quoting the “hope for the best, plan for the worst” mantra that cannot lead to anything other than U.S. acquiescence to a nuclear-armed Iran. That is an appalling little slogan for America to be using in the face of the world’s largest and most active state sponsor of terror actively seeking WMD technology. Mrs. Clinton’s response to recent Iranian protests was just as pathetic as Obama’s, merely saying that the Iranian people “deserve better than what they’re getting.” Yes, Hillary, they definitely deserve better than mass arrests and the shooting of innocents in the streets of Tehran. The Obama administration has completely fumbled an opportunity to reach out to the Iranian people, support a democratic movement against a fascist and dangerous regime, and perhaps lay the ground for avoiding a costly confrontation with the current establishment of deranged mullahs.

After a few cursory questions on Russia, the discussion moved to the subject of Afghanistan. Gregory immediately referred to the number of American casualties this past month. I am always amazed at the way the media measures success or failure of military operations by the number of dead. The numbers have indeed increased, but that is a reflection of wider and more aggressive operations and a direct result of the unwillingness of our so-called allies to engage in actual combat. Gregory asked if Afghanistan had become Obama’s “war of choice”, demonstrating his short historical memory of Taliban support and safe harbor for Al Qaeda. Mrs. Clinton referred to the “lessons of Iraq” being applied to Afghanistan, a bit odd considering her previous steadfast refusal to view Iraq as anything other than an unmitigated disaster. Both she and Obama constantly decried Bush administration policy in Iraq throughout their campaigns, but notably have continued the same course with little exception. Gregory’s short treatment of the Afghan war replicates the mass media’s disinterest and incapacity to adequately cover or understand a complex military situation.

The first commercial break came at the twenty five minute mark, and that ended the foreign policy discussion. The rest of the hour was filled with a potpourri of questions that had absolutely nothing to do with her current position. Hillary let loose with her trademark cackle at the first break, a chilling hoot that always reminds me of the witch in the Bugs Bunny cartoons. Mrs. Clinton was asked about her recovery from a fractured elbow, apparently a major handicap in schmoozing international leaders.

Gregory then asked about her relationship with President Obama, and that’s where the nonsense could only lead to intense and repeated eye-rolling. She said the administration was “six months in and look what we’ve done.” She then lauded the appointment of various “special envoys”, a procedure that only further indicates Obama’s doubts in her abilities. Hillary also claimed she had “great respect” for Obama’s world view, a direct contradiction of her biting campaign criticisms of him. The obligatory questions about the current health care debate were queried as if she is some sort of expert, when in fact her attempt at health care reform was a misadventure of epic proportion. She also claimed the President had done an “excellent job” on the Professor Gates arrest, something Obama is still trying to spin away from as fast as possible.
Gregory finished by asking about the possibility and difficulties of a woman becoming POTUS. Hillary was remarkably gracious when addressing the subject of Sarah Palin, the largest surprise of the entire show. Mrs. Clinton claimed becoming President was “not on my radar”, perhaps her most dubious claim. Gregory even scraped up the ambitions Hillary penned as a sixth grade student, the height of sycophancy he saved as the crowning jewel of an hour full of fawning flattery.

It is indeed unfortunate that the media, in this case Mr. Gregory, would treat a sitting Secretary of State with the softest of kid gloves. Certainly no Republican would be given such a blatant free pass. Mrs. Clinton’s resume for the position was extremely thin, consisting largely of extending her pinkie while sipping tea with the wives of foreign leaders. It is readily apparent that she was brought aboard only to compromise her potential candidacy in 2012. That is a potentially calamitous move in a dangerous world. Mr. Obama may yet come to regret her appointment, or perhaps he is working around her for that very reason. Meanwhile the nation suffers for her poor performance and lackey status within the Obama administration at a time when real leadership is needed to avoid potential disasters at every turn.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: I had the extreme misfortune of catching part of Chris Matthews' show as I was making coffee before the start of MTP. We all know what a big Obama fan he is, but his parting statement really stuck in my craw. In reference to the recent arrest of Obama pal Gates, Matthews actually claimed that Obama had not run as a black candidate, in the same way John Kennedy had not run as a Catholic candidate. Wrong, Chris. Obama played every advantage he could out of his ethnicity, and continues to do so. He garnered millions of votes simply because of his race, in what was the most outrageous example of racial politics I've ever seen. Many voted for him simply because of his race and without regard to his proposed policies or philosophy. If you're going to make factually incorrect statements in support of your Obamessiah, Mr. Matthews, you may want to stick to uttering them on MSNBC, where virtually no one but those who share your sentiments will hear them. Matthews lost credibility as anything but an Obama bootlicker long ago, and with statements like the one this morning, it appears his objectivity has no hope of returning.

WHY THE LEFT HATES SARAH PALIN & HER GREEN TOES

2009-07-12T09:18:00.009-04:00

One can always judge the strength and viability of a conservative presidential candidate from the amount and intensity of hatred and vitriol directed toward them from the left. If the left fears a particular individual, meaning a sense that they are gaining popularity, have strong convictions, or might actually be able to stand toe to toe with the liberals, they will begin the odium, name-calling and derision. Since they aren't able to effectively counter the tested and proven rectitude of conservative principles, it's all they have. The media, always willing to chip in to help the Democrats in any way possible, publicizes the loathing and chimes in right along with them. It's like a choir: the leader sets the note, passes out the lyrics, and the singers start right along with them. Every Republican leader in my lifetime has had to face this sort of idiocy. It is tired, transparent, and predictable. The recent resignation of Alaska Governor and former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin gave the leftist media types a perfect opportunity to begin such an effort in advance of the 2010 midterms and 2012 Presidential election. In keeping with their time honored traditions, they immediately began to spew lies, half-truths, and bitter invective. It is a measure of their shallow intellectual abilities: if they can't win the debate on ideas and principles, they resort to personalizing the issues, pointing fingers, and generally denigrating the individual. The abhorrence of Sarah Palin from the liberal left has begun in earnest, and the reasons for it are clear.

Governor Palin is everything the left once claimed to support. Here is a strong woman serving in a largely male dominated field, a woman who has made her own decisions and has carved out a career for herself while at the same time raising a family. She has had to withstand a tidal wave of insults and snide comments few men ever face. Late night comedians have referred to her look as a "slutty flight attendant", members of her family have been made the butt of crude and insulting attempts at humor, and the morality of her decison to raise a Downs Syndrome child has been questioned, along with her intelligence and experience. The focus on her clothing, appearance, and style is indeed remarkable. Not a day goes by without a negative column or asinine comment from the liberal talking heads. Their focus on her is obsessive and without apparent end. They keep saying how dumb and irrelevant she is, yet their parade of bile continues, actually torpedoing their efforts by giving her more airtime and keeping her in the national conversation. Palin is what the liberals fear most: a strong, conservative woman, and that's why they spend so much time attacking her. Were she a socialist-leaning liberal, they would be lauding her accomplishments, but since she is, to them, on the wrong side of the aisle, her remarkable achievements are scoffed at and belittled. It's the same old double standard from the left. They cannot tolerate a woman who has raised herself into the national spotlight while espousing conservative principles. They would be a singing an entirely different tune if she were supporting gay rights, infanticide, and socialized medicine.

The Democrats and other assorted liberals who strike out against her would prefer the GOP remain a disorganized entity with no recognized national leader. Governor Palin's emergence since being named John McCain's running mate highly disturbs them: it gives the conservative movement a stalwart leader and guide for coming elections. Far better to the liberals would be a chaotic party without guidance, foundering and doubting while the Dems consolidate their power base of minorities, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, greens, pro-abortionists, big government socialists, and the hippy set. The Democrats have always been a coalition party of interest groups instead of a party united by common values and principles, and there is no questioning their effectiveness at cobbling those groups together into a united voting bloc. The largest threat to that alliance is a party on the other side united by ideas, especially if the leader of such a philosphical union appears to be someone who would ordinarily be a member of one of their interest groups. That is why they so vehemently assail black or female Republicans. Surely, they think, no black or woman with a brain would join the GOP, as usual demonstrating their pompous intellectual snobbery. It galls them to no end and is a manifestation of their elitism. Sarah Palin offers the Republican Party a chance to once again unite around core conservative principles, something the left simply cannot allow.

Governor Palin came from humble origins and raised herself up through individual effort. The left has always despised any person who came from common stock to national prominence. It exemplifies the very conservative principles they so fervently oppose. They cannot admit anyone could possibly survive without the support of a massive and extensive government. Liberals prefer a biography replete with federal government handouts and affirmative action. Only Democrats can be permitted to elevate themselves, and even then only with a guiding hand from a nanny government. Governor Palin knows how to handle a firearm (gasp!), hunts, fishes, and rides snowmobiles (snowmachines, she would correct me). She demonstrates unusual comfort with every day folks because she is one. A prime example was provided by today's Washington Post:

"When a photographer prepared to take pictures of the interview, Mrs. Palin, wearing open-toed shoes, said laughingly, 'Don't get my toes in the picture - they are green on the bottom.'

Indeed they were. She said the marks were grass stains from mowing her lawn the previous day"

Horrors: a woman who cuts the grass! The Democrats know they can't allow any conservative with an ability to connect with average people to gain national prominence: it's a lesson they learned by repeatedly having their behinds thrashed by Ronald Reagan. No matter how dumb they said he was, his ability to relate to voters overcame their insults and hatred. Governor Palin has the same ability, and the left fears that more than anything.

Sarah Palin is detested by liberals because they know she can win. It's no more complicated than that. They know she is the strongest candidate to oppose them in the upcoming midterm elections and is the strongest candidate to oppose the Obamessiah. I will admit to a certain amount of vulgar sexism when judging Presidential candidates, but for me Palin has destroyed that by championing the tenets of Ronald Reagan the GOP unwisely ignored in 2008. Those principles transcend time and gender. Governor Palin is the best leader the GOP has at this moment in time. If you need proof, look at the amount of time and energy the left spends attacking her. Anytime you see the liberal set nearly foaming at the mouth with hatred of a conservative, it's a good bet that individual is a leader they fear they cannot defeat.

FRIDAY BEEFS: MJ AND GANGSTER GOVERNMENT

2009-07-10T12:54:00.004-04:00

1. MICHAEL JACKSON: This whole media frenzy makes me ill. Our military men and women are at war across the globe and warrant only a few minutes of coverage each day on most networks. Several of them have been rewarded for their gallantry in combat within the last week. A number of veterans who were similarly recognized during their careers have passed away within that same time, with absolutely no coverage. Several notable celebrities other than MJ passed away with little regard from the usually sycophantic media. Ed McMahon, a combat marine, passed with very few noticing. Farrah Fawcett, in my humble opinion one of the most beautiful women in all of human history, died after a heartbreaking battle with cancer. Her death was buried by MJ coverage. The entire spectacle illustrates the complete superficiality of the media and their lack of wisdom in deciding who and what to cover. Instead of providing real news coverage, they choose instead to worship at the altar of celebrity, and in this case, one who was generally recognized as a pedophile and cretin. Sure, he was acquitted of the molestation charges, just as O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder. This only demonstrates the biggest fault of our justice system: one gets the justice one can afford. MJ admitted that he spent his time sleeping with little boys. Do you know any other men in their forties who have made a similar admission and are not incarcerated? His famous “Neverland” ranch was simply a lure for young children. The simple fact is that the media has completely overlooked MJ’s creepy side and held him up as some sort of supernatural being without sin. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of making him responsible for his own actions, especially his drug addictions, he is being portrayed as a victim of his upbringing and wealth. Boo-hoo, poor Michael had a rough childhood and made a boatload of cash, and somehow that excuses the sexual assault of young boys. It’s sickening. His music, while entertaining to some, was not profound, deep, or philosophical. It was bubble gum pop and nothing more. His dancing and constant crotch-grabbing served only to further sexualize youth, something he no doubt knew and enjoyed. As for me, they can’t get him in the ground fast enough. Farewell and good riddance.

2. GOVERNMENTAL BLACKMAIL: Here in Columbus, Ohio, we are the capital of government by force. Governor Strickland is battling with Republicans over the state budget. Teddy is trying to force the state legislature to incorporate electronic gambling machines at horse tracks into the budget to help deal with a $3.2 billion deficit. This might not be so offensive were the Governor not ignoring the fact that gambling in several different forms has been repeatedly rejected at the ballot box by the citizens of this state. That makes this current attempt very close to communism. Strickland is choosing to ignore the will of the people and force something on them that has been roundly defeated more than once. He is using the budget deficit as a wedge to force the citizenry to accept casinos and casino-style gambling. Shame on you, Teddy: does the will of the people have no meaning to you at all? The Ohio Constitution was amended by voters in 1972 to allow a state-run lottery, but prohibits “schemes of chance” including slot machines. Strickland is trying to skirt the law by having the state lottery run the machines. Nice try, Teddy, but what you are doing is sheer despotism. All he needs to do is take the issue to the voters, but he knows it will be rejected like all the other efforts before it. Gambling proponents always cry about Ohio losing revenue to surrounding states that allow all sorts of gambling. What they fail to mention is that we are also missing out on the organized crime, prostitution, and drug trade that invariably accompanies the business of gambling. Ohio voters have decided time after time that they are unwilling to allow organized gambling other than the state lottery, which was originally proposed as a means of financing schools but has turned into a cash cow for free-spending liberals. Strickland has already expanded the lottery by executive fiat to include keno and now he thinks he can use the budget process to force the issue further.

Then there’s the city of Columbus. A special election on August 4 will allow voters to decide if the city’s income tax should be raised by 25 percent, from 2 percent to 2.5 percent. The current city budget is $630.5million, and the proposed hike would generate an estimated $90 - $100 million dollars. As usual, Mayor Michael Coleman, a committed liberal big spender, is threatening major cuts to police and fire services should the initiative fail. He expects us to believe that the city has already cut everything available and that those services are the only things left. That is pure poppycock. No salary cuts for city officials have been proposed, no wasteful programs have been examined, and he continues to push for federal money to partially fund a ridiculous and unnecessary light rail system that would serve only a few. Coleman seems to be able to find all the cash he needs for his numerous asinine pet projects, but if he doesn’t get more cash, policeman and fireman will take the brunt of the threatened cuts. The mayor is resorting to the typical blackmail tactics used by Democrats for years: we need more money, but if we don’t get it, essential services will be the first to go. Columbus Public Schools continually rank among the worst and pay their administrators exorbitant salaries, but those are held sacrosanct. Most people who work in the city itself do not live there. They have, over the past three decades or so, moved to the surrounding suburbs for better homes and schools. The proposed tax would hit them the hardest, and their use of city services is minimal. If you think that’s bad, take a look at what one suburban school district is trying.

Southwestern City Schools (SWCS) encompasses the Columbus suburb of Grove City and parts of western Franklin County. The district is far superior to Columbus Public, thanks to a large property tax base of decent homes, something Columbus lacks. The last SWCS levy failed last March. The new proposed levy would add $254 in property tax each year per $100,000 of home value and would generate an estimated $21 million in revenue. Here we have another school district with a bloated administration paid equally bloated salaries. The district is attempting to blackmail voters by threatening to cut, of all things, every sports program and the band. Never mind that many students get athletic or musical scholarships to further their education. Never mind that many of the schools are lit up like Christmas trees even during the summer. Never mind that the district has repeatedly demonstrated financial ineptness at managing funds in the past, including several administrator retreats held at resort hotels complete with sizable alcohol tabs. The district is trying to hit parents where it hurts most to force passage of the levy. It is nothing less than intimidation and extortion. Hopefully the voters have enough courage to reject the levy and force the district to make more sensible cuts.

I told you we were the capital of government blackmail. Local governments are using gangster tactics to force the citizenry to approve tax hikes in a time of economic crisis instead of cutting waste and abuse. What was that Thomas Jefferson said about the tree of liberty?

UPDATE: COMMUNIST TEDDY STRICKLAND HAS FORCED THE COWARDLY OHIO LEGISLATURE TO ALLOW SLOT MACHINES AT OHIO'S SEVEN RACETRACKS. ONCE AGAIN HE RULES THE STATE THROUGH TERROR LIKE KIM JONG-IL. WHY DO DEMOCRATS ALWAYS RULE THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT ON ISSUES THAT THEY KNOW THE VOTERS OPPOSE? CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WEAK AND USELESS OHIO LEGISLATURE: YOU SHOULD SUSPEND YOUR ACTIVITIES AND RESIGN IN SHAME.

TRIBUTE TO MY FATHER

2009-06-21T13:07:00.000-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS A TRIBUTE I WROTE TO MY DAD FOR HIS FUNERAL LAST AUGUST. HE HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH PANCREATIC CANCER IN EARLY MAY, AND CHEMOTHERAPY COULD NOT STOP THE RAPID PROGRESSION. THIS IS MY FIRST FATHER'S DAY WITHOUT HIM, AND HE IS SORELY MISSED.
____________________________________________________
THE BEST MAN I HAVE EVER KNOWN

We have each known men who set the example for us all, men of fine character whose actions are beyond question. These good men display a higher moral standard through their deeds and in the manner they live their lives. They reflect the most basic of American values in all they do: honesty, hard work, commitment to family, and a willingness to sacrifice for others. Unfortunately, many times these men are far removed from those who look up to them. Athletes, film stars, or other celebrities partially fill the role for those without someone closer to emulate. I was blessed with a father who was always the only hero I ever needed, and I wanted to share a few thoughts and stories about Dad that demonstrate that.

I cannot imagine anyone more honest than Dad. He let you know the facts of any situation right up front, unvarnished and without any sugary coating. I always knew right away if he disapproved of my actions or thought I was misbehaving. He rarely raised his voice in anger, but no one had any doubts about where he stood. Dad never pulled a punch, even if it was about his own health. I vividly remember his bluntness in telling me his reaction to the onset of the macular degeneration that would eventually steal most of his sight. He said, “Rob, I sat down and cried about it, but then after that, what can you do? I have to go on.” He never was one to bemoan his situation, blame others, or whine about his problems.

My father’s devotion to his family was total. Any man willing to adopt a son and daughter and love them as his own is indeed extraordinary. He worked long hours at an extremely physical job just to provide for us. Dad always made sure I had whatever I needed to be like the other kids. I learned as an adult that he had been teased as a child at school in rural Virginia for his hand me down clothing and lack of shoes, and he didn’t want that for his own children. I think that’s why he would put on his shoes immediately in the morning and keep them on all day even if he didn’t plan to leave the house. Dad sacrificed countless times to buy me that new expensive pair of tennis shoes or winter jacket I simply had to have to be cool like the other kids. All the while he was going without the tools that might have made his work easier and eating bologna or spam sandwiches for lunch at work for weeks on end. I will always remember the roughness of his hands, and my amazement at how the calluses on his palm matched the grip of a hammer. When we were little he would often bring us candy when he returned from a long day of work. I can remember Mom being upset with him for sneaking us Mallowcups before dinner. Dad never owned fine cars or fancy clothes for himself, and I don’t think he ever desired them. He was happy just to make sure we had whatever we needed or wanted, no matter how silly or frivolous.

He spent the last years of his life caring for Louise as Alzheimer’s slowly took her away from him. He first tended to her every need at home while he was mostly blind, and then never missed a daily visit to feed and care for her once her condition worsened. His grandchildren were very special to Dad, and I’ll never forget the look of joy on his face the first time I handed Andy over to him to hold. Andy learned early on that “Papa” was the man to see if he needed something for school or money for a new toy or video game.

Dad raised me with a sense of obligation to country. His oldest brother Oscar was killed in the Battle of the Bulge, and his own duty to our nation had been honorably fulfilled in the combat of the Korean War. His advice to me prior to leaving for basic training was the best I ever received. He simply said, “Keep your mouth closed, listen to your sergeants, and always follow orders.” His reaction to first seeing me in Army uniform was simple and priceless. He put his arm around my shoulder and with a tear in his eye said, “You’re a soldier now. You’re a man.” He was letting me know I had fulfilled his expectation of national service. Dad didn’t care much for politicians, but he loved America and firmly believed in young men serving in our military.

Even the way Dad used the phone told you something about him. No matter how big or distant the national chain he might be calling, Dad would always start with, “This is Gene Mullins out in Grove City,” as if they should recognize him instantly. It was simply his way of letting them know that he was a man of honor, proud of who and what he was, and that he was ready to deal with others in a straight forward manner.

Dad’s counsel is what I’ll miss most. He had a wealth of knowledge on all subjects relevant to everyday living. So many times in my life I went to Dad and got just the right answer to a problem that had seemed unsolvable to me. His most famous advice was about keeping the oil changed in cars. Dad would launch into a five minute speech about the importance of oil changes every time he got the chance. Sometimes I would mention the subject around others just to get him going. Invariably the phrase “oil is the lifeblood of an engine” would be used repeatedly. Dad knew a little maintenance now could save a big problem later. He will be sorely missed whenever I need to rely on some real world experience.

Dad and I shared a love of professional football from early in my childhood. Sundays were for watching the NFL together. We teased each other relentlessly during the season. Dad was a die-hard Bengals fan, and like everything else he did, he stayed loyal to them until the end. I became a Steelers fan, probably disappointing him a little. Even though that rivalry gave us many jokes to crack on each other over the years, it was never mean spirited or nasty. We both enjoyed following the league like a soap opera for men, and football was always a main subject for our discussions. It was our way of connecting to the past and to each other. Dad passed on his vast knowledge and deep appreciation of the game to me, and I will carry it with me forever.

Simply put, Dad was the best man I have ever known. He is the standard by which I measure myself and others. Phrases like “salt of the earth” were invented to describe men like him. He was always ready to help others, even if they were strangers. He never shirked his responsibilities or made excuses. His family was his highest priority, and he never let us down, not even once.

I have lost my father, my best friend, and the only hero that ever really mattered to me. There can surely be no doubt we have all lost a good man.

We will all go on with our lives like he would want us to do, but it won’t be easy without him. Goodbye, Dad.
__________________________________________________________
FATHER'S DAY WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN, DAD, AND I MISS YOU EVERY DAY.

MIND YOUR MANNERS

2009-06-21T00:26:00.000-04:00

Civilization requires we be civil to each other. A rapid decline of civility in America does not bode well for our future. I began thinking about this as a result of an incident at a local convenience store today. As I approached the entry door, I was preceded by two young men and an elderly woman using a cane. The two young men picked up their pace to get to the door before the lady. I assumed they would hold the door for her, but they did not. They allowed it to close without even a look back. I then took several quick steps to reach the door before the lady did so that I could hold the door for her. The look of surprise on her face was priceless and made my effort more than worth it. She said, “Thank you”, and I responded with a “Yes, Ma’am.” I was raised by a mother from Alabama who insisted on good manners at all times, especially toward women and senior citizens. She has been gone for many years, but her lessons were not lost on me. I still fear the brutal backhand that would land aside my head whenever I forgot my manners. The ugly truth is that ordinary, common etiquette has almost completely disappeared from our culture. I’m not talking about which fork to use for which course at dinner, but rather something more rudimentary. I’m referring to rules of civil society that indicate a respect for one another. We should all aspire as individuals and as parents to restore these norms to our society.

Allow me to explain. The basics are fairly simple: saying “please”, “thank you”, and referring to elders as “sir” or “ma’am” whenever appropriate, pulling out chairs for ladies or helping them with their coats or packages, and holding doors for women and the aged are all part of a bigger code of conduct. That code seeks to protect and respect the most vulnerable members of our society, and it is sadly lacking from our daily discourse. These are not tremendous acts of sacrifice nor do they require a monumental exertion. They are simply a set of behavioral standards that place a template on our actions that shows deference to other human beings. It may sound absurd to some, but they go a very long way towards easing the stresses of daily life. Any time one sees a lady or a senior in need of assistance, we should respond without hesitation, almost reflexively. Clearly I am referring to men and specifically young men in particular. Not too long ago I witnessed an older gentleman at a home improvement store struggling to load several large pieces of plywood. I was loading my truck at the time, and I watched several strapping young men walk by without helping. I stopped what I was doing to help, as I assume anyone with a modicum of concern would. The man actually tried to tip me, but I politely refused. I considered it my basic duty and the least I could do. I had never seen this man before, and I may never again, but I know that he will not soon forget. I cannot understand why these sorts of acts are rare now.

Young men have a responsibility to the other parts of our population whether they choose to accept it or not. It reflects very poorly on their upbringing should they not do so. Several times in the past I have grabbed the shoulder of my son and held him back when he attempted to go through an entrance ahead of others for which he should have waited. I have tried to pass along the manners taught to me by my mother because they indicate a basic regard for others. It’s bad enough that many fathers are completely absent, but it seems the ones who are present are failing to teach their young men proper conduct. Children are a reflection of their parents, and that reflection should include civility. We fail as parents and as a culture when we neglect that. It leads to greater and more concerning acts of callousness and disrespect.

Another incident this weekend confirmed my fears. I witnessed a funeral procession traveling along a major Columbus road. When I was a young man, it was customary for opposing traffic or nearby pedestrians to briefly stop while the procession passed. It is not legally required, but it is respect for the deceased and their family. We may not have known the individual, but we can acknowledge their passing simply by taking a few seconds to pause in reflection. Our lives go on afterward, unlike the deceased. When our culture has lost regard for even the dead, it is not a good omen. Of course, respect for life has been declining in America for many years, so maybe this is part of that, but that certainly in no way excuses it.

Politeness smoothes the daily interactions we have with one another. Next time you call a government agency or private company for assistance, start by thanking the individual by name for taking your call. You might be surprised how much more cooperative and helpful the individual will be. It’s amazing. Those of us who are parents should be even more attentive to the way we conduct ourselves. Our children watch and imitate every move we make and every transaction we have with others. Boorish manners and the insensitive treatment of others do not make things easier or faster. They simply indicate a disregard for others and a focus on one’s self.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS

2009-06-14T16:27:00.002-04:00

We all know these are difficult economic times. We assume an eventual rebound with all the usual features: gains in employment, increased construction and manufacturing, and a rising tide for everyone. This economic downturn has been decades in the making, and it will not be solved overnight or even anytime soon. President Obama has made increased employment claims that are dubious and perhaps completely fraudulent. His administration’s efforts to halt the slide have been at best completely ineffective and at worst have deepened and given the crisis a longer life. We are in a huge abyss, and it’s important to look at the factors that have created it.

Manufacturing in this country has reached an all time low. Sometimes it seems we don’t make anything in the U.S. anymore except for big, fat butts. Our cars, steel, electronics, and increasingly food, are obtained from foreign sources. One would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of American products at your local retailer. Foreign manufacturers can produce these products cheaply because they do not have to worry about environmental restrictions, quality control, or even paying their workers a decent wage. I am 43 years old, and in my lifetime alone American manufacturing has been devastated, boxed up, and shipped overseas. The paint manufacturing company I left after eleven years now has less than twenty percent of the workers it did when I resigned. Rockwell is gone from the airport, and the GM facility on the west side of town closed years ago. Consumers, eager to get their hands on cheap goods, don’t concern themselves with country of origin or even quality. For them it’s all about price. This attitude, as well as many other misguided government policies, have brought desolation to the American middle class and helped to wreck our economic engine. The days when a young man or woman could graduate from high school, get a job working in a factory, comfortably raise a family, and retire after thirty years are gone. Even if by some miracle one did manage to do that, benefits or pensions would likely be cut or completely taken away after retirement. Our automobile industry would likely collapse without government intervention. There is serious doubt about whether or not the U.S. has the steel manufacturing capacity we would need in a major war of extended length. Those two industries alone were for many years the source of decent wages and other benefits for middle class Americans. Those opportunities are now gone.
The American construction industry is also at an all time low. The recession itself is partly to blame, but there are indeed other factors. Everything involved in it has become an industry itself. Government regulations detail and dominate every aspect no matter how small. Legal and illegal immigrants have largely forced natural born Americans out of the business by under bidding labor. This industry was also the source of good income and benefits for the middle class, and it too is nearly gone as an opportunity.

Trades have come under the control of either government or private business. Don’t think so? A list of occupations regulated by the Ohio Revised Code is demonstrative:

TITLE [47] XLVII OCCUPATIONS -- PROFESSIONS
CHAPTER 4701: ACCOUNTANCY BOARD LAW
CHAPTER 4703: ARCHITECTS
CHAPTER 4705: ATTORNEYS
CHAPTER 4707: AUCTIONEERS
CHAPTER 4709: BARBERS
CHAPTER 4710: DEBT POOLING COMPANIES
CHAPTER 4711: COMMISSION MERCHANTS
CHAPTER 4712: OHIO CREDIT SERVICES ORGANIZATION ACT
CHAPTER 4713: COSMETOLOGISTS
CHAPTER 4715: DENTISTS; DENTAL HYGIENISTS
CHAPTER 4717: EMBALMERS, FUNERAL DIRECTORS, CREMATORIES
CHAPTER 4719: TELEPHONE SOLICITORS
CHAPTER 4721: INNKEEPERS
CHAPTER 4723: NURSES
CHAPTER 4725: OPTOMETRISTS; DISPENSING OPTICIANS
CHAPTER 4727: PAWNBROKERS
CHAPTER 4728: PRECIOUS METALS DEALERS
CHAPTER 4729: PHARMACISTS; DANGEROUS DRUGS
CHAPTER 4730: PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS
CHAPTER 4731: PHYSICIANS; LIMITED PRACTITIONERS
CHAPTER 4732: PSYCHOLOGISTS
CHAPTER 4733: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS
CHAPTER 4734: CHIROPRACTORS
CHAPTER 4735: REAL ESTATE BROKERS
CHAPTER 4736: SANITARIANS
CHAPTER 4737: SECONDHAND DEALERS; JUNK YARDS
CHAPTER 4738: MOTOR VEHICLE SALVAGE
CHAPTER 4740: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
CHAPTER 4741: VETERINARIANS
CHAPTER 4742: EMERGENCY SERVICE TELECOMMUNICATORS
CHAPTER 4747: HEARING AID DEALERS
CHAPTER 4749: PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS; SECURITY SERVICES
CHAPTER 4751: NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS
CHAPTER 4752: HOME MEDICAL SERVICES
CHAPTER 4753: SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS AND AUDIOLOGISTS
CHAPTER 4755: OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS; PHYSICAL THERAPISTS; ATHLETIC TRAINERS
CHAPTER 4757: COUNSELORS, SOCIAL WORKERS, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS
CHAPTER 4758: CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY PROFESSIONALS
CHAPTER 4759: DIETETICS
CHAPTER 4760: ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS
CHAPTER 4761: RESPIRATORY CARE
CHAPTER 4762: ACUPUNCTURISTS
CHAPTER 4763: REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
CHAPTER 4771: ATHLETE AGENTS
CHAPTER 4773: RADIATION TECHNICIANS
CHAPTER 4774: RADIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS
CHAPTER 4775: MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION REPAIR OPERATORS
CHAPTER 4779: ORTHOTISTS, PROSTHETISTS, PEDORTHISTS

Some of these are understandable, but most are not. The bulk require licensing one cannot obtain without experience, but experience cannot be obtained without the license or some sort of apprenticeship. The most outrageous example is the field of private investigation, and it demonstrates my point exactly (complete text here). The state first broadly defines the occupation to cover as many as possible, then sets restrictions that cannot be met by the average person. The next step is to configure the composition of the licensing board completely from industry insiders. Some of the requirements are understandable (no felonies, pass an exam, have insurance), but one in particular closes off the industry to almost everyone: two years experience in either investigation work, practicing law, or law enforcement or work for a public investigative agency are required. That makes the industry a clique run by a select few. Licensing and other requirements for some other occupations are similarly designed. It is the result of a government out of control to the point where it damages the people it serves. The Ohio Revised Code and the draconian restrictions contained therein effectively make the state anti-business. The intent may have been to regulate certain fields for safety or for the protection of consumers, but like every other good idea, it goes too far in the hands of the government. If only the ORC were used as a guide, it would seem clear that the state is trying to discourage business formation and the employment it could bring. Until and unless a sweeping reform of the code takes place, there is little hope for economic gains in Ohio. The state government simply will not allow individual citizens to conduct business without hampering the effort.

Wages for working people have fallen through the floor as a result of immigrant labor. Why pay an American twenty dollars an hour when you can pay an immigrant eight or ten? Given the price of housing, food, and other essentials, it is basically impossible for non-professional folks to survive in the current climate. The price tag on a new car is roughly equivalent to what our parents paid for a house. That sort of inflation over the last several decades has forced many to work more than one job, and many others into poverty. I see ads online everyday seeking someone to do a job that is physically demanding while offering paltry wages. Those ads are clearly directed at immigrants and the businesses or individuals placing them know it. Pay for CEOs is always on the rise, and it comes directly out of the wallets of those who serve the company in the most difficult and labor intensive positions. It is not the federal government but the business owners and shareholders that should demand limits on executive compensation. Exorbitant sums being paid to one individual at the top is both a bad business model and demoralizing to the rest of the workforce. Meanwhile, the working individual is having their wages reduced and benefits eliminated. It’s a recipe for disaster, and what we see now is only the beginning.

As if that all weren’t a bad enough scenario, add the high and fluctuating cost of energy, particularly gasoline. Those who work in the transportation field feel it, but so does the small business person. Here in Columbus we are now paying around $2.75 a gallon for regular gas. Just a few short months ago it averaged $1.50 a gallon. The price jump has nearly doubled the costs of transport for everything. It’s a factor in virtually every quarter of the economy, and the effects of an upward price change ripple throughout and hit everyone. The highly speculative oil market makes billionaires of a few and paupers of the rest.

All of these factors and many others combine to reduce the number of people in the middle class. Eventually we’ll all be either poor, rich, or work for the government. There isn’t going to be room for anything else. President Obama’s economic recovery measures will result only in higher deficits and increased inflation and will leave the next generation of Americans an even greater burden. Politicians and the media are oblivious to what is happening. If they don’t notice and take significant action soon, it may be too late.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY REVIEW

2009-06-14T10:01:00.002-04:00

For those of us seeking intelligent political debate, there is only one show to watch on Sunday mornings. Fox News Sunday always has the most relevant guests, features the most important subjects of the day, and host Chris Wallace is a gritty interviewer who gives no quarter to the politicians across the table. Let's face it, Meet The Press has gone right off the cliff since Tim Russert unexpectedly passed away, leaving the program with a major hole that has yet to be filled. David Gregory is the wrong man in the wrong job, having been a shill for the Democrats for many years before his current assignment. Before MTP, Gregory served at the White House, where he spent his time finding ways to ask questions for the liberal left at press conferences. The other similar programs available to Sunday morning viewers are, to say the least, less than satisfactory. I would rather do time in a Ugandan prison than watch the Chris Matthews or George Stephanopoulis programs in their entirity.

The first discussion featured Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Grassley discussing the pending debate on healthcare. This could dramatically impact funding available for national defense since one-sixth of our economy is related to the medical field. President Obama and his allies in the Senate (Dodd and Kennedy) have formulated a disturbing plan that could drive the economy even further into the ground. Guesstimated costs for the program amount to over a TRILLION dollars over the next ten years. Obama has proposed $300B in cuts that cannot be calculated by the Congressional Budget Office and are apparently completely unverifiable. Both Senators spoke of the need to control costs through preventative health measures, and as usual, they singled out smoking as the number one problem, totally ignoring the tidal wave of obesity sweeping the land. Both Senators also agreed that any mandates for health insurance should be placed on the individual and not on companies. Senator Grassley suggested health insurance could be checked just like car insurance, and we all know how well that system works. Further, the American people should reject the concept of the federal government once again expanding size and scope, especially in an area where we lead the world. Senator Grassley tried to knock down worried about the costs of such a plan, pointing out that the costs for the Medicare prescription program are short of the estimates. That may be true, Senator, but remember we are discussing a federal program that will come complete with all the bells and whistles Congress can possibly hang on it. The management of the system will no doubt be as effective as everything else the federal government does so well. It will be prohibitively expensive, likely resulting in higher taxes, and will constantly expand once in place. Clinton's attempt to do something similar collapsed under heavy scrutiny, and we can only hope Obama's attempt faces the same fate. Indeed, something must be done about healthcare, but a federal government takeover is not the answer and will only make things far, far worse. Host Chris Wallace pointed out at the end of the segment that Senator Dodd's wife serves on the board of four healthcare companies. Dodd dismissed those concerns, saying she had a career before they married and that the companies in question are research firms. The phrase you could not find, Senator, was "conflict of interest". Are we supposed to believe any reform passed by Congress would have no impact at all on the companies for which she works? She should resign, and there's no telling how many other Senators and Representatives are in a similar situation. Open the prisons, make room for Congress!

The next guest was President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Thomas Donahue talking about his new program to promote free markets. Interesting, considering the Chamber supported the outrageous amount of money spent by the administration for attempted economic stimulus. Now, all of a sudden, they've found religion. Mr. Donahue warned of the effect of additional mandates and regulations forced on the business community and said "everyone came to church" on the stimulus plans. Not true, Mr. Donahue. Some of us warned from the very beginning that excessive government spending would make things worse. Anyone out there think that all that money has made anything better? Not one person or group can point to specific and reliable economic or employment date that suggests that. One has to question the thinking of Mr. Donahue when he said the "big" companies need to get back to creating jobs. Small companies create most of the jobs in America, sir, and as President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, you should know that.

The best part of FNS is always the panel of journalists and their debate of the subjects of the day. Today the panel was optimally configured and balanced left/right with Brit Hume, Bill Krystol, Mara Liasson, and Juan Williams. The most amusing part of the discussion is watching Juan Williams from NPR squirm and grimace while the conservatives are speaking. It brings me joy to know that Juan is so bothered by the expression of anything short of communism. Iran and the reelection of Ahmadinejad the madman was the main subject. Brit Hume correctly called the Iranian election "defective if not fraudulent". Bill Krystol pointed to mass demonstrations and labor strikes in Iran
scheduled for Tuesday and hoped the President will reach out in some way and support those demonstrating. Even Chris Wallace chimed in on this one, calling the Iranian government a "totalitarian regime" and mentioning their shutdown of cellphones and websites during and after voting took place. Mara and Juan, the big libs on the panel, both admitted that this is a setback for the Obama engagement policy. Juan even said that it would "embolden" U.S. hardliners. We're already bold, Juan. We didn't need any more evidence that Iran is a fascist government that supports terrorism around the globe and is seeking nuclear weapons. We're convinced. The fact is that Iran is a dangerous force controlled by mullahs hoping to bring on the apocalypse. Both Iran and North Korea continue their provocative behavior while Obama plays nice and wants to talk.

MTP featured Vice President Joe Biden, always an amusing individual. Seeing him attempt to speak makes one hope for the safety of President Obama. Biden is a clown, presumably added to the ticket for his foreign policy "experience". In the Democrat party, traveling abroad to have tea with foreign potentates constitutes "experience". As if that weren't atrocious enough, the ensuing pity party for the GOP with Joe Scarborough was even worse. Scarborough has made a living trashing the party over on MSNBC, consorting with the Dems and nodding in agreement with them. Good thing their ratings are abysmally low.

I probably shouldn't even mention this, but it was so offensive I must. Chris Matthews had an all liberal female panel, and they spent most of their time deriding men and gushing over how great women are. I would love to have five minutes on the air with that group.

Fox News Sunday once again demonstrated that it is the premier Sunday morning political talk show. Chris Wallace is the perfect host and rarely gives his guests any place to hide. FNS has become the preeminent show for political interviews and debate, and from the looks of the competition, doesn't face any serious competition for the foreseeable future.

SHUT UP, DICK.

2009-05-17T11:17:00.003-04:00

Few if any have more respect for former Vice President Dick Cheney than I do. I have always considered him one of the smartest folks in our government, and rarely have I disagreed with him on policy in any area. Dick’s been making the media rounds lately defending Bush administration policies, especially the “enhanced” interrogation techniques now so frequently in the news, and criticizing Obama’s national security policies. Mr. Cheney spent the vast majority of his life in public service, and he deserves our respect and appreciation for that. He also deserves to be heard from on occasion as an elder of the party, but it ends there. The party needs to look forward, not backward, and the more Dick sounds off, the less oxygen left in the room for whatever GOP leaders may emerge. No matter the issue, Cheney’s frequent appearances are counterproductive. It’s time to shut up and go fishing, Dick.

The party is in transition at this point and it’s time for the old guard to vacate the premises and allow the younger crowd to move in and take charge. Mr. Cheney had his time. He spent much of the last forty years in Washington in some of the highest positions in our government. He wielded power previously unknown to any Vice President, an office he held for eight years. The election has come and gone, the new administration has taken office, and it’s time for the party to regroup, find new leaders, and move forward. Mr. Cheney may well feel he needs to speak out on issues from time to time, and that’s normal. Having him as the lead spokesman for the GOP is another matter. Cheney appearing so often could make him the face of the party in the public mind, and that’s not a good thing. He can’t run and likely couldn't win. The party needs new leaders to step forward, whoever they may be. Several Republican governors come to mind, absent a real GOP leader in Congress. Cheney has been made into a big, scary bogeyman by the left and can’t effectively communicate the message of the party in a way that will facilitate a growth in membership or support new faces.

One should never interrupt an enemy who is in the process of committing suicide. Not that Mr. Obama is any sort of real enemy, but in a political sense. The President has the votes in Congress and probably has enough public support to pass whatever he has a mind to enact. It will be his budgets and his administration’s policies that will be guiding the nation. The accountability will be his alone. There will be a point at which the former President can no longer be effectually blamed for current woes. Those of us who know that the principles espoused by Reagan are guides for the party and for America’s future also know that Mr. Obama’s policies will fail. It’s like watching Jimmy Carter part two. Unfortunately those policies include national security, putting all of us at risk, a bitter reminder that elections do have consequences. Obama’s massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government and runaway spending will eventually result in increased inflation and unemployment. We’ve seen this show before. Mr. Obama came into office with a long leash from the public and the media, a leash those very same people will yank when the inevitable failures come. When that rubicon is crossed, the new leaders of the GOP must be present and familiar to the electorate. In the meantime, they have to be given the space to emerge and play the role of loyal opposition. Mr. Cheney’s criticisms are too early and too loud. He’s tamping down movement toward the future. The last election has to be considered at least a desire to move in a new direction, if not a complete repudiation of the last administration. Give the President the room he needs to make mistakes. Then the party can point them out and illustrate the differences. Cheney is interrupting what should be the normal flow of the political process.

Cheney’s also not the one who should be engaged with Colin Powell or anyone else over the future direction of the party. For that matter, Powell shouldn’t really be considered a Republican, given his endorsement of Obama last fall. It’s not clear to me why General Powell is considered such a sage. The future should be formed by those who will participate in it, not by those who have served their time already. Neither gentleman will be a major player three or four years hence. They’ve had their time in the sun, that time has passed, and they should ease gracefully into retirement.

The issue is not whether Cheney is right on policy or party issues. His time has passed. He is in effect haunting us like a ghost. He must be exorcised. The party needs a spokesman who can run and win. Cheney is not that person, and his presence retards the materialization of someone who can do the work. His service to our nation and the party has been more than admirable, but it cannot continue. Mr. Cheney should retire himself to Wyoming and take the grandkids fishing for a good, long while.

ENOUGH ABOUT TORTURE

2009-05-14T12:39:00.002-04:00

The debate over torture is getting tiresome. It is a deliberation we should not be having at all. It makes me wince every time it’s mentioned, and naturally the media uses it as a cudgel to pound the Bush administration while ignoring those in the Democrat leadership who knew from the beginning. This subject is so dark and heavy it weighs on our foreign policy and reputation abroad. It’s time to end the debate, reaffirm what should have been the case, and commit in the future to never again delve into this sort of depravity.

The standards that should be applied are plain. Those captured by the United States, whether soldiers, enemy combatants, or terrorists, should all be afforded the full protections offered by the Geneva Conventions. The real standard is much simpler: prisoners of war should be treated as we would want our soldiers treated should they be captured. The standard cannot be to use the same immoral techniques as the enemy in order to defeat them. That is the difference between us. As Bin Laden and others have repeatedly pointed out, the Islamofascists worship death. The terrorists have no qualms about using whatever brutal methods they can dream up for their victims. They do not have any concern about norms of civilized behavior or adhere to international accords. That’s the whole point. We as a democratic republic cannot condone, participate in, or allow those in our custody to be mistreated. It violates the very principles for which we are struggling. That is not to say we should adopt a Jimmy Carter-style foreign policy that focuses on human rights to the exclusion of all else, but it is to say that the abuse, mistreatment, or torture of prisoners of war is makes us little better than those we fight.

Supporters of “harsh techniques” always make an argument that suggests there is no other way to get information or that pressure might have to be applied expediently to avert an imminent attack. Neither of these is logical or acceptable. Tortured prisoners are simply going to divulge whatever is necessary to make their tormentors stop. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the media rounds lately in an effort to defend the use of torture on guys like KSM. As much respect as I have for Dick, I don’t agree with him on this one. I appreciate his spirited defense of the former administration, but discussing whether or not timely and reliable information was obtained as a result of torture completely misses the point and makes the situation worse. Some intelligence may have been obtained, but at what price? It’s the same with the recent release of the memoranda and potential release of photos involved. Repeatedly bringing the subject back up for public discussion in any manner does nothing to improve the situation. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but in this case the sunlight is also toxic to us. More than enough damage has been done. Our intelligence work should be advanced enough to avoid situations where information about a pending attack has to be gained at any price. The very same Democrats in Congress that spent the 1990s gutting our national intelligence services like a fish are the very same ones first to criticize and rebuke whenever there’s a problem. Some of those very same folks were briefed on what was happening and turned a blind eye. That is a dereliction of duty of the highest order. They knew and did nothing.

Threats of criminal prosecution against lawyers at DOJ who formulated and approved the policies in question are absurd and counterproductive. Calls for a “truth commission” are equally as ridiculous. The facts are that members of both Congress and the Bush administration were aware of and at least tacitly condoned the techniques that were being used. Any sort of criminal charges would merely be a speeding ticket: many others similarly situated would escape prosecution. More potentially damaging, however, are the hearings now underway in Congress. Why they are being conducted in open committee session is beyond me. Any information related to this subject should be held in the strictest of confidence. Keeping the subject in the public discourse damages our reputation further and allows our enemies to point the finger right back at us for hypocrisy.

There is a catch. While those held by us should be afforded maximum protection, they also must be held until the conflict is resolved. No releases, no trials, and no tribunals. Prisoners of war are traditionally held until either the end of the war or until a prisoner swap can be negotiated. Since there is no one to negotiate with, the solution is to hold them until it’s over. More than one prisoner has been released only to return to combat against American forces. The proposed closing of GITMO should be abandoned. We must have a secure facility in which to house these people, and better it be far from American shores than somewhere inside the continental United States. The idea of indefinite detention is a powerful tool.

Our image abroad does matter, as much as we would like to tell the rest of the planet to get lost. We’re the good guys. We don’t build an empire, we are not conquerors, and we respect basic human dignity. Anything less knocks us off our moral high ground and is used by the enemy to recruit. If we’re going to disparage others for cruelty, surely we cannot afford to engage in it ourselves. I understand that water boarding does not quite equate to an internet beheading, but it is torture. Pointing out human rights violations in China or Cuba or elsewhere rings quite hollow if we are a nation known for torturing prisoners. Torture cannot be broken down into degrees of severity. Either a nation respects the rights of those captured or it does not. That doesn’t mean soft treatment. It means following the basic rights we have already committed to both in principle and by international agreement.

So enough about torture. It goes against all we are as a nation. It gives the enemy a recruiting tool we cannot easily counter. Whether or not it is effective is irrelevant. Allowing it because our enemies are crueler throws us into the same filthy pit. We must make every effort to insure prisoners of war are treated humanely. And they are POWs. Calling them “enemy combatants” somehow allows treatment that would not ordinarily be permitted.

They are prisoners of war and they should be treated accordingly. That includes holding them until the war is over. All of them.

OBAMA'S 100 DAY GRADE: F

2009-04-29T14:01:00.004-04:00

The one hundred day mark of the Obama administration has arrived. This has always been a traditional time to evaluate a new President, and Mr. Obama certainly should not be denied that gauge. It has indeed been difficult to watch our new CINC fumble and stumble on the world stage, and I take absolutely no joy in it. Obama’s failures and missteps endanger us all. It is deadly serious business, lives hang in the balance, and this is what happens when the people elect a man with no international policy or military experience to be the leader of the strongest and finest armed forces the world has ever known. The stakes are colossal for us all, especially for our military men and women deployed around the world in the fight against Islamic terrorism.

Mr. Obama receives an “F” for failures in the defense budget process and international politics.

1. DEFENSE BUDGET: Mr. Obama’s proposed budget for FY2010 is clearly a fiscal exercise designed to siphon money away from the Pentagon and towards other spending at the expense of our national security and defense industry (See Gates’ budget statement here.) SECDEF Gates has been attempting to sell a set of cuts that indicate his thinking on future wars. Gates has proposed capping F-22 Raptor acquisition at 187, despite USAF contentions last fall that at least 80 more are needed to maintain air superiority against the Chinese and Russians. That move alone could cost the jobs of 95,000 employees at Lockheed and other contractors. Add another 5,000 defense jobs lost if production of the C-17 cargo aircraft is halted as well. Other potential cut victims could include the next generation of USN destroyers, a new USAF manned bomber program, and the Army’s Future Combat System (details here).

Most disturbing are the suggested cuts to missile defense. The plan caps deployment of further interceptors to Alaska and cuts deployment to Poland and the Czech Republic. At a time when America should be showing strength and taking steps to defend against the little dictator in North Korea and the apocalyptic cult in Tehran, Obama and Gates are choosing to drastically cut the only program of defense against one of them firing off a missile. In the absence of an effective missile defense, the United States and our allies are left completely naked to a nuclear missile attack and are left with overwhelming response as the only option. Though the attacker would certainly suffer a hellish counterattack, tens or hundreds of millions of Americans or Europeans would still die a horrible death. Our mighty response will be meaningless for them. The current program of missile defense is vital to our national security and should be treated as a top priority. Iran and North Korea are not the only nations developing missile and nuclear technology, and the future likely holds more proliferation. The program has shown repeated success in tests and deserves a budget increase, not a gutting like the one offered by Obama and Gates.

Overall the budget is focused on a counter-insurgency fight to the exclusion of a potentially large-scale land war. Why does Mr. Gates think China won’t take action against Taiwan or that Russia won’t invade one of our NATO allies? The defense budget must remain widely focused to cover all potential threats, not just on the combat in which we are currently engaged.

SECDEF Gates has proven to be an advocate of a plan that is misguided and threatens to jeopardize national security for decades to come. Mr. Gates is trying to divide opposition to the cuts by promising increases in other areas to offset the pain that will no doubt be inflicted on America’s defense workers at a time of continuing economic crisis. Mr. Gates should resign instead of continuing to push a program that turns the Pentagon into a source of revenue for new social spending for the Obama administration.

2. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: Obama has traveled a fair bit, and he always seems to greet foreign crowds with an apology on his lips. Apparently America has been very bad, and Obama feels the need to apologize for us taking legitimate action to defend ourselves against terrorists or deposing brutal despots. The new policy seems to be a butt-kissing approach: shaking hands with the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, bowing deeply to the Saudi King, attempting to engage the Islamic fascists in Iran. These “new” approaches do not enhance our security. Quite the opposite: it makes America look weak and conciliatory when we should be strong and stubborn.

As if the general apologies weren’t insulting enough, Mr. Obama told an audience in Strasbourg, France, that fixing the economy is his “number one job”. Actually it’s not his job at all, and anyone familiar with our Constitution would know that. The President’s duties are fairly limited. They’re all laid out in Article II, section II, and nowhere is the economy listed. It’s remarkable that any President, or for that matter any American, would show that sort of base ignorance of our founding document.

The administration completely failed to organize any sort of meaningful response to the latest North Korean missile launch. The NK program of simultaneously developing missile and nuclear capability proceeds without much objection. The message being sent is that the world is completely powerless to do anything about it. North Korea has no intention of halting any aspect of their program, and attempted negotiations are nothing more than a smoke screen to delay and confuse. A preemptive strike before the launch might be a bridge too far, but there is certainly nothing stopping us from intercepting the launch once it leaves NK territory. Bold steps need to be taken on the NK issue, and it seems none are forthcoming.

The other surviving member of the Axis of Evil, Iran, also continues to develop missile and nuclear technology without opposition. Despite the repeated assertions by various members of the administration that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, again no concrete action is being taken. Instead Obama writes to Tsar Medvedev and makes a cowardly offer to sell out European missile defense for help on Iran. It’s time for Obama and the rest of the appeasement crowd to recognize neither Russia nor any other nation is going to help with Iran. The threats to America and Israel from Tehran are a daily occurrence, hardly even notice by the media anymore. It’s past time for military action against Iran. The last administration missed a golden opportunity for a surprise attack after the election. If action is not taken soon, we will be facing nuclear weapons in the hands of a messianic Islamic cult that supports terror on a global level. Obama is even trying to kill a lawsuit against Iran by former hostages, likely because it names Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as one of the participants. The consequences of inaction could eventually be catastrophic.

Since we’re consorting with tyrants and despots now, why not Cuba? Sure, it’s an old line Communist regime that keeps tens of thousands of political prisoners and has completely failed the Cuban people for fifty years, but that Raul seems nice. Offering to talk isn’t enough. Let’s allow more money to be sent home by Cubans living here, thus fattening the coffers of the Cuban government which takes a twenty percent transaction fee. The embargo should not be lifted and no talks should take place until the Cuban government reforms, period. The Cuban government has so far declined.

Pakistan is sliding toward disaster. Once Musharraf was removed, things began unraveling. The Paki government chose to cut deals with the Taliban instead of killing them. Now the Taliban hold sway over large areas of the countryside, the Paki intelligence services have in some cases cooperated, and the security of Paki nuclear weapons is ever more questionable. We may never be able secure Afghanistan if we can’t stop the support from Pakistan.

Speaking of Afghanistan, Mr. Obama has chosen to increase the number of U.S. forces on the ground. One can only hope he is listening to General Petraeus. The Soviets and the British before them discovered the hard way that massive numbers of troops are not the answer in Afghanistan. Most of our supposed allies in Old Europe have either declined to send additional forces or send only non-combat troops that are prohibited from deployment to the south of the country, coincidentally where most of the fighting takes place. At least those apologies worked. We have to hope Petraeus can have the same success as he did in Iraq, but the situations are vastly different.

Iraq continues to improve, perhaps justifying the troop withdrawals ordered by Mr. Obama. Time will tell. The only thing for sure is that it’s not sure. Obama is risking all the gains made in Iraq through the blood of our military to fulfill a campaign promise and satisfy his liberal supporters. Victory should be the only acceptable result, and pulling out too many troops too fast could cause a collapse. Caution and patience should be exercised when making an evaluation of the situation on the ground in Iraq. Of course, when success isn’t your primary objective, anything that makes the pacifist left happy will do.

3. TORTURE: I may be one of the few conservatives who has consistently spoken out against the use of torture. Torture is the method of the enemy. Building a free world is inconsistent with its use. For any who doubt that water boarding is torture, check for a video on YouTube. Any reasonable person who watches that knows it is. The Bush administration had absolutely no business delving into this dark arena, it is beneath us, and makes us no better than the enemy. That being said, the release of memorandum or photos related to the interrogations cannot and will not be a positive for America. Looking back and perhaps incriminating people or conducting some witch hunt will only result in further damage. This is part of the past that needs to remain in the past. Obama has clearly tried to play both sides of the fence on this one, attempting to soothe his liberal base crying out for a commission while playing to the vast majority of the American people who in poll after poll do not support further investigation. Sweeping it under the rug may not be the final answer, but feeding more data into the hopper will undoubtedly damage our security.

The dangers of inexperience are manifest. Mr. Obama is the emptiest suit ever to inhabit the office of President, and we are now and will continue to pay a heavy price for it. His lack of understanding of his role as CINC and appeasement based foreign policy is shameful. He is weakening America’s national defenses on a daily basis in order to spend more on domestic programs. We won’t need those domestic programs if we’re killed by terrorists. Security must come first. The real horror is that Obama will still be in office for years to come, and will likely have the backing of a liberal Democrat Congress as well. Defense and foreign policy decisions have impacts that reach far into the future. Our armed forces will be the ones who suffer most.

ISRAEL VS. HAMAS

2009-01-14T22:08:00.002-05:00

ISRAEL: Israeli Defence Forces have a tough job. They are fighting committed Muslim fanatics who hide amongst the civilian population. Whenever Israel responds to something like, oh say, DAILY ROCKET ATTACKS, the terrorists go to ground and hide in either civilian homes or places that would not normally be targets: schools, hospitals, or mosques. Then when the IDF visits and KILLS them, they can cry about collateral civilian casualties that are the inevitable result of the terrorists hiding there in the first place. It's part of the vicious cycle of Israeli -Palestinian violence. The Hamas terrorists operate completely outside the laws of land warfare, then seek world sympathy for whatever inflated number of deaths they are claiming. They never mention that the vast majority of civilian deaths were people being used by Hamas as human shields.
Then the pacifists at the United Nations start wailing, and Israel starts granting short cease fires for humanitarian resupply. The Hamas terrorists use the pause to resupply as well, prolonging the fighting. We've seen it all before. It seems to have no end. That's why the Israelis should get a bit tougher.
Cancel the humanitarian aid breaks. Give Hamas no quarter and no rest. Anything delivered to Gaza will be seized by Hamas in any event. The terrorists hide amongst the innocent, so supreme discretion is needed, but that should not impede location and destruction of Hamas targets. Israel should clean out Teheran's Hamas surrogates before wrapping up operations. No nation should be expected to be indifferent to constant terrorist attack, and there should be a wider recognition of Israel's right to self defense. Let the crybabies at the U.N. do what they do best: cry. Until the rocket threat is eliminated, Israel should apply maximum pressure and eliminate as many Hamas targets as possible.
Hamas alone bears responsibility for the collateral damage. They are using civilians as sandbags, so some innocents are bound to get caught in the fire. Hamas knows that the world media will pick up on film of the injured civilians. Their complaints fall on deaf ears for my part. Don't hide in civilian homes. Don't use civilians as shields. Stop hiding in or firing from protected buildings. While you're at it, try a uniform. The Hamas terrorists would never do that. Then it would be a straight up fight with IDF, a fight they have to know they would lose badly and quickly. I don't hear law of land warfare complaints from those who launch unguided rockets into civilian populations, or blow up civilian buses with suicide bombers, or hide amongst civilians.
From my perspective, Israel is way too restrained. Can you imagine the American response to rocket fire from Canada or Mexico? Would that be restrained? I hope Israel gets both hands around Hamas' neck and twists. Why should they stop before finishing the job?
Any conclusion to the conflict that does not eliminate Hamas power in Gaza is unacceptable. It would only continue the cycle. Israel should break Hamas once and for all as a power in Gaza. The whole mess makes a mockery of any so called "two state" settlement. Setting up Hamas as heads of a state is a bad idea. This has to be the most intractable conflict on the globe. I support the IDF.

ATTACK IRAN NOW: MORE EVIDENCE

2008-12-03T20:40:00.002-05:00

BACK ME UP ON THIS: Events relating to Iran's nuclear program continue to spiral out of control. The last entry of this blog called for Iran to be struck now instead of waiting for the Obama administration to assume power. Since then, nearly every significant news headline screams for action against the world's largest state sponsor of terror before it's too late.

Iran is currently conducting a six-day naval exercise in the Persian Gulf stretching all the way to Oman. Apparently intended to reinforce Iran's threats to shut down the Gulf to oil traffic in the event of an attack, the exercises cover some 130,000 square kilometers of ocean. Iran appears able to deploy at least a somewhat credible naval force despite the United Nations sanctions limiting their ability to acquire new equipment and spare parts for their military. How surprising that the U.N. is totally ineffective. Iran's naval forces should be a high priority on the target list for an attack, and this week's exercises are more proof of that.

The United States military in Iraq has captured over 30 Iranian suspects in Iraq in the last four weeks. Just today, two members of Ketai'b Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist network, were detained in Baghdad while a third was killed when he unwisely chose to fire on American forces. No more evidence of Iranian interference in Iraq is needed. The proof already amassed in sufficient to warrant military action. Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of United States military personnel in Iraq and elsewhere. To date they have suffered very few consequences as a result.

Israel continues to draw up plans for an attack on Iran with or without American assistance. A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran would not be in our best interests. It would place Israel in an untenable position. At least the IDF recognizes the threat posed by Iran and their unchecked nuclear program. The United States should coordinate with Israel and prevent the IDF from having to take action on their own. The United States has already deployed a sophisticated X-band radar system and the troops necessary to operate it to Israel. The system would give an earlier warning of an Iranian missile launch. What could be done to intercept a potentially nuclear-tipped projectile at that point is unclear. What is clear is that the threat exists. Shouldn't we be willing take action to prevent the possibility of such an attack instead of waiting for an actual launch? By that time it would likely limit Israel's response to defensive measures, and a single nuclear strike on Israel would be catastrophic given their size.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, aggressive rhetoric, and continued flexing of military power all point to one possible response for the United States: strike as soon as viable with as much violence as possible to at least significantly delay their hostile intentions. President Bush could take one more measure to enhance our security before leaving office, and that would be to launch a comprehensive air and naval attack on Iran and their nuclear facilities. The longer he waits, the worse the situation becomes. Should he leave office without taking action, he would be abandoning our defense to a President and group of advisers naive enough to think diplomacy is the answer. Talking with Iran will only allow them more time and space to develop the weapons and missile technology necessary for them to launch the attack they have already loudly and clearly announce is their aim. Let's hope Bush has the foresight and intestinal fortitude to take care of one last item before he departs. Giving Obama the keys to the Oval Office is no less than giving Iran the keys to the nuclear Pandora's box.

BAILOUT NONSENSE: Our government is approaching full-blown socialism, and very few seem willing to oppose it. Private industry relying on the federal government for financial support is the very definition of socialism. Businesses should succeed or fail of their own accord, not be propped up by taxpayer money. American consumers are the ones in need of assistance, not corporations who have poorly managed their affairs for decades. Newt Gingrich has proposed a several month long taxpayer holiday that makes far more sense than shoveling money into poor business models. Unions have done their share in pushing the auto companies into near bankruptcy. Everyone is for fair labor practices, good benefits, and higher wages, but those too have limits. Businesses can only pay what they can afford. The autoworker unions have forced U.S. car companies into paying labor costs that are simply unsustainable. That coupled with lack of innovation and shoddy products have created the problems that now exist. Asking the government to now step in with potentially trillions of taxpayer dollars in relief in unacceptable. Businesses should be allowed to fail or succeed of their own accord. Government's only role should be to create an environment in which business is permitted to succeed without excessive interference or regulation. That's it. Requiring taxpayers to compensate for bloated CEO salaries and fifty years of incompetence is beyond the pale. Let these banks and corporations fail if we must. The result will be companies wiser and more in tune with consumers. Forget the bigwigs, it's the working men and women of this country who need relief. Adding the burden of government bailouts is precisely what they don't need. Congress should turn their back on bailouts and instead concentrate on how to help average men and women. Now that would be real change.

GERMANS FAILING: Recent German parliamentary reports indicate that Bundeswehr troops in Afghanistan are drinking too much, not exercising enough, and are too fat. Little surprise then that they are allegedly failing miserably in their mission to train Afghan police. This is the kind of support we can routinely expect from Old Europe. Allowing them alcohol while deployed in a Muslim country speaks to their lack of commitment to the effort. At last count, German troops in Afghanistan consumed 896,000 pints of beer in the first six months of 2008. Pathetic indeed for a military deployed to counter the Taliban.

TEN REASONS TO STRIKE IRAN NOW

2008-11-21T01:54:00.003-05:00

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." George S. Patton

There is a looming threat on the horizon. All those with knowledge of the situation are aware of its existence. It has been approaching for some time without significant action being taken to stop it. The consequences for not acting could be disastrous or even apocalyptic. Most of the world stands idly by, also cognizant of the threat, but seemingly paralyzed. It is as if a gigantic destructive asteroid is approaching our planet while everyone stares at the sky in disbelief. Some are screaming at the top of their lungs while most remain stunned.

Iran's nuclear program has been the subject of much debate for years. Media reports this week indicate they now have enough material to build at least one bomb, needing only to refine it. Experts predictions place the time frame at anywhere from one to seven years until refining is possible and complete. The point of no return for the rest of the world, and especially the United States and Israel, is nigh. Now is the time to strike Iran with all our collective might before events overtake us and such a mission is not possible. Here are ten reasons why:

1. The United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have made little to no progress in slowing or even successfully monitoring the Iranian nuclear program. In its latest report, the IAEA and Director General Mohammed ElBaradei admit that after six years, they are not one bit closer to determining the purpose of Iranian nuclear intentions. The Iranians allegedly have nearly four thousand centrifuges running to produce the necessary material, with another two thousand plus ready to come on line. Iran continues to defy Security Council demands to halt enrichment, claiming the program has a purely peaceful purpose. Other intelligence sources indicate Iran is testing high explosives and missile re-entry vehicles. The entire fiasco is shrouded in mystery, has been all along, and the U.N. is powerless to do anything about it. Three rounds of U.S. sanctions restricting the export of military technology to Tehran have been roundly ignored. Those who claim that further enrichment would tip off inspectors are whistling past the graveyard. No amount of U.N. resolutions or sanctions can stop them at this point. There can be no remaining doubt about the intentions of their development. It is military in nature and aiming for a weapon capable of striking with little to no warning.

2. Iran's leaders have made repeated threats, especially against Israel. The rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to be menacing and even borderline insane. Wiping Israel off the map and striking Iran's enemies are a normal part of his statements. It seems the majority of the world continues to turn a deaf ear to his rantings. He continually rejects Israel's right to exist and is a known Holocaust denier. Apologists question his hold on power and assert he is not actually in charge, both suggestions dubious at best. Ahmadinejad should be taken seriously. Future victims of an Iranian nuclear attack may wonder why he was so long ignored. His re-election, once in question, now seems assured.

3. Iran's support of terrorist movements around the world is documented and well known. Their support of Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and interference in Lebanon is not a matter of debate. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, had prior knowledge of the kidnapping and murder of USMC Colonel William Higgins in Lebanon in 1988, and directly supported the group responsible for the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed nineteen American servicemen. Should they succeed in developing a weapon, they could easily pass it on to one of their terrorist allies and place their guilt for an attack in question.

4. Iran continues to interfere in Iraq. They have provided advanced armor-penetrating IEDs to Iraqi insurgents, directly resulting in the deaths of American forces. Iranian agents have occasionally been detained in Iraq while they provided weapons and training to terrorists battling Iraqi and U.S. forces. Their recent vocal opposition to the Iraqi security pact with the United States that would extend the presence of American forces shows their level of interest.

5. An attack now would be somewhat unexpected. The sense of relief they may feel over the election of Barack Obama should be exploited now before it dissipates.

6. Israel is ready and capable of helping. The F16-I now in the Israeli arsenal has made a long distance attack more feasible. Considering the level and frequency of threats against the Jewish state, their cooperation and assistance is assured.

7. Obama is coming. His promise to engage in direct talks with Iran will only result in further delay that would allow the Iranian nuclear program to proceed apace. Further diplomatic discussion with Iran is pure tomfoolery. Their repeated and continued defiance of the United Nations and the international community as a whole is not likely to be reversed with a few high level chats. Involvement in photo ops with Obama would only legitimize their delusions of grandeur and give them more time for enrichment and missile development.

8. The Bush administration, now fully in lame duck mode, would pay little or no political price domestically or internationally for an attack now. The election is over. The Republican candidate already lost. There are only a few months left to act before Obama takes office. Should the President-elect decide to talk with the Iranians as promised, his position would only be strengthened by a successful attack he could somewhat distance himself from later.

9. An attack, while possibly not completely devastating to Iranian nuclear plans, would provide an additional measure of time for further international action if any is possible. Their facilities may well indeed be widely dispersed and deeply buried, but many of them are readily apparent and above ground. Claiming that an attack might not be one-hundred percent successful does not justify doing nothing at all. Broadening the target list to include Iranian oil refineries would further handicap their efforts.

10. American naval forces are now deployed in the Persian Gulf in sufficient numbers to both launch an attack and counter any Iranian attempts to block the flow of oil. The fact those forces are already in place also provides an additional edge of secrecy. The threat to the U.S. Navy from Iranian naval forces would be minimal, especially if the targets for an attack included ports and harbors used by them.

Options for countering Iranian nuclear development narrow as time progresses. The United Nations and other international organizations are feckless as usual. The time to effectively strike is now, but the window is rapidly closing. When it eventually slams shut, the world will have no choice but to rely on the good intentions of men like Ahmadinejad. The United States and Israel cannot take the chance that Iran will either build a usable nuclear weapons platform or pass a weapon off to their terrorist allies. The risks of acting are indeed great, but the risks of not acting are potentially devastating to millions of people for many years to come. Strike while the iron is hot, and surely it's flaming right now.

WEEKEND REVIEW

2008-11-17T20:10:00.002-05:00

OBAMA WORKING AGAINST U.S./IRAQ SECURITY PACT?: The President-elect was interviewed on 60 Minutes Sunday, and seemed to position himself in opposition to the security agreement working its way through the Iraqi parliament. U.S. officials have endorsed the language and seem headed toward an agreement that will result in American forces completely withdrawing from Iraq by 2011. Obama, however, is apparently intending to ignore the agreement and pull out much sooner and much faster, endangering the painful progress that has been made by Iraqi and U.S. forces. The following is text from the interview:

CBS) Kroft: Can you give us some sense of when you might start redeployments out of Iraq?

Mr. Obama: Well, I've said during the campaign, and I've stuck to this commitment, that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my national security apparatus, and we will start executing a plan that draws down our troops. Particularly in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan, which has continued to worsen. We've got to shore up those efforts.

As soon as he takes office? What will happen, a rush for the exits? This is dangerous and irresponsible talk at a time when a tediously negotiated arrangement with American forces is being debated by a foreign government. It's possible they may interpret Mr. Obamas words as a rejection of the agreement, void any possibility of its passage, and doom any future security arrangements. The proposed treaty allows Iraqi courts to try Americans for certain crimes, probably a bad idea anyway. The point is that Obamas comments come at a time when he should remain silent on the issue. Just today JCS Chairman Mullen stated that he was comfortable with the 2011 withdrawal date, but that conditions on the ground should dictate the pace and scale of redeployment. What a novel idea. Mr. Obama continues to show his inexperience in military matters, preferring instead to bow to the pacifist elements among his supporters without regard to the consequences. We have admittedly paid a heavy price in blood and treasure for our efforts in Iraq, and simply fulfilling a campaign promise would be a sorry reason to demolish that progress. Hopefully his "national security apparatus" will inform Mr. Obama that now is not the time to leave Iraqi security forces on their own without American support. Those same advisers should also assure that Obama is aware of the history of large foreign military ventures in Afghanistan and allow General Petraeus to guide our efforts there. Obamas statements are dangerous and extremely uninformed.

BILLARY AT STATE?: Obama met with Hillary Clinton and is considering her for Secretary of State. Beside the fact that she is uniquely unqualified, Slick Willie is complicating matters. His Clinton Global Foundation has collected billions of dollars from dubious foreign sources, and there has been some foot-dragging about releasing information concerning them, both now and during the primaries. The very idea of Bill lurking around Foggy Bottom is creepy enough, but Hillary as Secretary is even scarier. A history of having tea with the wives of various foreign leaders seems her main qualification. What really is happening is Obama putting his main rival within his party in a position he can control. Hillary may end up holding the post, but it is Obama will set the policy she will oversee. These are the type of decisions those of us who voted against Obama were dread to see realized. One doesn't have to wonder how much influence Bill might have. Hillary has ridden his coattails to every position she has ever held, and this one would be no different. Even without Slick Willies problems, we only have to look at the closing days of the Clinton administration to see the type of shenanigans we can expect. The other individual reportedly being considered is Senator John Kerry, so there will be pain for conservatives no matter which one is chosen. Lesser of two evils, anyone?

POOR JOE: Senate Dems are poised to strip Joe Lieberman of his Armed Services chairmanship for daring to support John McCain for President. The Connecticut independent has been caucusing with the Dems, but has been vocal in his support for the Iraq war and other Bush administration foreign policies. Senator Lieberman has pulled no punches in criticizing Democrats for their soft war stances, and it appears he will now pay a price. He may end up remaining chair of the Homeland Security committee, much to the chagrin of the hateful left that wish to punish him. The Dems are showing once again that the left cannibalize their own when even slightly challenged by intellectually honest opposition within their party. Lieberman is an old line liberal when it comes to everything else, but his stance on the war has been admirable and impressive given the wrath he surely knew was coming.

McCAIN AND OBAMA CHAT: Senator McCain and President-elect Obama met for a chat today in Chicago. McCain pledged to help Obama anywhere he could, and Obama expressed his respect and admiration for McCain. It's unclear if McCain might be in line for any cabinet post. What is impressive is the fact that these two can meet in an amicable manner so soon after a contentious election. That points to the strength of our system and the acceptance all have for the outcome. In very few other nations could this happen, and we all should be proud as Americans that our elections are resolved in such an open manner and that the contenders proceed to meet and at least express limited support for one another.

PALIN ON TOUR: Former Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been making the media rounds. It has been interesting to see the level to which the left will stoop to discredit and insult her. It reminds me of the way they treated the Gipper. Just an amiable dunce, they say, borderline illiterate, they say. It is a measure of how threatened by her they really are. She is a conservative reformer and media star no matter what they throw at her. As the GOP grapples with where to go and what to do now, they could do a lot worse than Sarah. She should spend the next several years traveling and making speeches to firm up her support. This would enable her to make a serious run in 2012. Watch the left squirm and offend her as she goes. It's simply a measure of how much they fear her. It's interesting to point out that she is the fulfillment of all the feminist left has tried to achieve for years: wife, mother, career woman, leader. The fact that she holds traditionally conservative views, however, makes her a target of the first order. She represents a return to the values of Reagan that the GOP has ignored at its own peril, evidenced by the last election. Go Sarah!

OBAMA TO KILL MISSILE DEFENSE?

2008-11-12T20:01:00.003-05:00

President-elect Obama has more than one major military decision to make, not the least of which is what to do about missile defense. He'll have to decide whether or not to continue the Bush administration's plans to deploy ten missile interceptors in Poland and a set of radar stations in the Czech Republic, set to be operational by 2014. Obama was not specific about his plans for the program during the campaign, obviously designed to leave him some flexibility. As with most military issues, Obama seems less than fully informed. Any reasonable person who has followed the issue should be aware of the success of recent tests, the threat posed by Iran, and the apparent viability of a system first proposed by Ronald Reagan.

Today, LTG Henry Obering III, head of the Missile Defense Agency, wondered about Obama's intentions for the program and its pending deployment. It is remarkable that more than a week after his election, neither Obama nor any of his minions have reached out to the general. Of course, Obama has yet to consult SECDEF Gates and has only had a brief conversation with JCS Chairman Mullen, so why would one suspect he has delved any further into other vital defense issues. Obering expressed confidence in the European leg of the system to function properly and provide a viable defense against missile launches from rogue nations, namely Iran. Just yesterday Iran test fired a new generation of missile and continues its inexorable march toward acquiring nuclear capability. Their latest missile provides them another option should they decide to strike Israel or Europe.

Given the increasingly disturbing rhetoric coming from Tehran and their pace of weapons development, European capitals would be wise to consider full deployment in the shortest possible time frame. The proposed European deployment does not defend the continental U.S. and would only provide protection against a limited number of strikes. Opposition from European peaceniks is puzzling considering it is a system that is purely defensive. Do they prefer to be left naked to Iranian aggression? As usual, Old Europe seeks to oppose any American efforts to shore up collective defense, more proof that NATO is moving headlong toward becoming completely useless. They won't provide additional troops for combat in Afghanistan, preferring instead to keep their precious and relatively small troop contingents in REMF roles and allow U.S. forces to bear the brunt of fighting and thus casualties. They're fine with supplying a few additional troops, so long as they don't have to participate in actual combat. Old Europe as a bloc tries to act as a counterbalance to American power even while enjoying the nuclear and defense umbrella we continue to provide. So much for gratitude and commitment to collective defense.

The Kremlin also seems somewhat uninformed about missile defense. The system nearing deployment is not designed to counter a nuclear arsenal as large as Russia's or provide an offensive capability. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last week he plans to deploy nuclear missiles closer to Poland to counter a possible deployment to interceptors. This is nothing more than paranoia, not an unusual reaction from Russia. Anything that comes within a thousand miles of their border is seen as an imminent threat. Russian nuclear forces could easily overwhelm the proposed system. Perhaps they're still terrified by Reagan's vision. They should be more concerned about Iran and the destabilizing nature of their threats. Russia has provided technology and equipment to further Iranian missile development, so maybe they think they are immune from potential attack. Moscow has also threatened to deploy jamming equipment to counter any defensive systems, but we don't hear Berlin or Paris howling about that.

President-elect Obama's inexperience may lead him to kill the program as part of a gutting of the Pentagon budget to provide funds for ridiculous social spending. That would be a dangerous path to follow. Iran's missile program has placed Europe squarely in the cross hairs. Leaving them without any defense, even if they don't see the wisdom of it, is simply foolish. The Iranians should know that there is a good possibility that a missile strike against Israel or Europe would likely result in an intercept and an overwhelming response may be enough to deter them from doing so. That is the real purpose of the system.

Obama has some time to make the decision, but he doesn't have forever. Stepping up to the plate on this issue would be a strong move. Whether or not he has the guts is another issue. The whole idea of missile defense, having been conceived by the Gipper, elicits a knee-jerk reaction from the Democrats, as do most high tech defense programs. Their desire to divert the funds to domestic spending could leave Europe and Israel short in the event of an Iranian attack. Obama needs to show he has the ability to take actions necessary for national security opposed by the pacifist left. Future Presidents may be hamstrung by the decision Obama makes on this issue. He should aggressively pursue development and deployment not for others, but for American national security. None of us knows what the future may hold, and it would as always be prudent to prepare for a worst case scenario. Missile defense has come a long way, the test firings are increasingly successful, and deployment is simply the next stage. Delaying or cancelling deployment would indicate Obama's plans for other Pentagon programs necessary for our defense and the protection of others. Let's hope he makes the right call. We'll be watching to see how he moves on this one.

TAP DANCING ON A LANDMINE

2008-11-11T21:12:00.003-05:00

President-elect Obama is already showing his naivete concerning military matters. So far he has only spoken briefly to JCS Chairman Mullen and not at all to SECDEF Gates. One would think these two gentlemen would already have been extensively consulted by the man about to take the reins of the world's finest military currently fighting two wars. His campaign promises do not bode well for our armed forces or their efforts. His intent to exponentially increase spending on domestic programs spells certain doom for Pentagon efforts to maintain and improve our forces. It is hard to fathom that this was truly the intent of the American people.

The subject of the enemy combatants held at GITMO has already arisen. Obama seems headed toward allowing these miscreants civilian trials, an outrage considering they have been detained as suspected Al Qaeda members or were taken prisoner on the battlefield while actually engaging U.S. forces in combat. Allowing them all the rights and privileges of American citizens is beyond the pale. The only logical policy is to hold them until the war is over or begin military tribunals that would lead most if not all of them to the gallows. Does anyone think our Al Qaeda enemies would be kinder than we have been? I wouldn't dare suggest we start cutting off heads on the Internet as they have often done, but fair is fair. Why should they be treated any differently than prisoners taken in past wars? Obama should resist the urge to placate the rest of the world and handle them with velvet gloves. They should be treated with an iron fist instead, if nothing else to dissuade others from joining their cause of killing Americans. Enemies of the United States should know that if they attack American forces in the field, they will be swiftly tried and executed if they are fortunate enough to be taken prisoner. The Geneva Conventions, which should be followed during their captivity, certainly do not require anything close to what Obama is suggesting. Enemy combatants not in the uniform of a recognized nation are accorded absolutely nothing. Obama's plan could set a dangerous precedent for our military. The idea of Al Qaeda members taken prisoner immediately demanding lawyers for their defense and being given the exact same rights as American citizens is unthinkable.

Media reports Tuesday indicate the Taliban are urging Obama to discontinue our efforts in Afghanistan show what course should not be taken. The President-elect has repeatedly indicated a willingness to send more forces to Afghanistan lest he appear a total defeatist. Unfortunately he has also indicated a desire to quickly withdraw American forces from Iraq at a time when victory appears imminent. A hasty retreat from Iraq could result in a total collapse of all the efforts there so far. That would be a waste of all the blood and treasure invested over the last five years. Iraqi forces are largely in control of the country now, but our forces are still needed to support and train them. Obama should defer to General Petraeus on both these conflicts, and most assuredly the general would not recommend such a plan. He should also pay close attention to the lessons of history concerning Afghanistan. Both the Russians and the British before them attempted to control the country with massive amounts of troops, and both failed miserably. Some additional forces may be needed, but certainly not the numbers we have seen in Iraq. Instead, Obama should recognize his total inexperience and allow Petraeus to continue the policy of negotiating with the reconcilables while battling the less agreeable insurgents. Obama has certainly not made the prospects of victory any more likely by suggesting we take more aggressive action across the border in Pakistan. We need the Pakis as allies, not enemies as the result of increased action. Some strikes withing Pakistan may be necessary, but it is a far wiser policy to continue pressuring the nuclear-armed Pakis themselves to take the required actions. Obama was rather careless during the campaign in his comments about Pakistan, a fact not lost on the them or others in the region. He should tread carefully when suggesting we bomb an ally, an idea that reveals his lack of understanding of military matters.

The Pentagon budget is just as tricky. Obama will have to balance the maintenance of current forces against programs for future weapons systems, just as every President before him has done. Defense projects take many years to complete and thus must be wisely planned. Both the new F-35 fighter jet and the sorely needed new generation of ground combat vehicles for the Army have been identified as possible budget casualties. Every time Obama proposes some new government cheese program, he is putting the future defense of our nation at risk. Seeking to trim budget overruns and speed up procurement delays would be the wiser policy. Today Obama promised to care for America's veterans, but that seems doubtful considering the amount of new domestic spending he proposed during the campaign. Hopefully Mr. Obama will have wise counsel on these issues, because he certainly doesn't have the personal experience to handle them alone. It's unlikely his Cabinet will be stocked with Pentagon hawks, making the outlook for desperately needed military equipment programs cloudy at best.

Our nation is taking a potentially dangerous risk by placing Obama in the Oval Office. Rumors of a twenty-five percent Pentagon budget cut floated last week indicate the depths to which he may be willing to go to fund his domestic spending. One can hope that was only a rumor. At a time when we are engaged with the enemy on multiple fronts and faced with increasing threats at home, Obama risks devastating our armed forces for decades to come. He is without a doubt the emptiest suit ever elected to the highest office in the land. Those who supported him will bear direct responsibility for the consequences of his defense policy. The tragic part is that our men and women in uniform and in harm's way will pay the price more immediately.

FRESH START

2008-11-10T11:48:00.002-05:00

I will admit I have been completely demoralized by the election results. I considered deleting this entire blog and ignoring politics.

I can't do it.

There are too many important issues, especially concerning our armed forces. I will begin posting again tonight. Rest assured there will be no quarter given to the Hussein Obama administration. Thanks for reading.

JINGO REPORT 10/20/08

2008-10-20T11:43:00.000-04:00

COLON POWELL UPDATE: Now we get a little insight into General Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barak Obama yesterday. “He will have a role as one of my advisers,” Obama said on Monday. So that’s it. Powell’s poor judgment of presidential candidates is a naked attempt to gain further high office. He chose to endorse Obama over McCain, a man whose judgment on military matters has been shown to be wise. At a time of war for America, Powell’s endorsement was at first puzzling. Obama’s comment from this morning reveals the truth and reflects very poorly on the general. Were the general truly a genuine supporter of Obama, why did he wait until the last hour to endorse? Surely he had an opinion before this time. Worse was Powell’s condemnation of Sarah Palin as unqualified to serve. Compared to who, General, a one-term Senator from Illinois with about as much experience as my teenager? General Powell has now lost whatever scraps of credibility he had left.

SARAH PALIN UPDATE: Governor Palin did well on SNL this past weekend, much to the dismay of her critics. The media, locked in a passionate kiss with Obama, cannot stand the sight of Palin. She turns their philosophy upside down. Dems are always claiming to be in favor of the mothers and working mothers of America, until they find out she’s a conservative that is. Then the full weight of the press comes down in an attempt to smear and discredit. It’s fine to be a working mom as long as you’re a pro-abortion liberal. Conservative women break their model and thus cannot be tolerated. It’s been a real joy to see Governor Palin take on the media and hecklers. They have no answer for her.

AFGHANISTAN BANANA STAND: The press is up to their usual hi jinks concerning Afghan war casualty figures. Deaths caused by Taliban attacks or suicide bombings are trumpeted from the highest mountain, but numbers of Taliban killed by allied forces are posted on the back page. The reality is that the Taliban have been taking a pounding for some time now, and the only actions left for them are pathetic suicide attacks focused largely on civilians. Every time an American soldier is killed, the story leads and casualty figures for the entire war are restated. As of Friday, American deaths totaled 542. Certainly every loss is tragic and every soldier irreplaceable, but considering we pushed out the Taliban and established a new government in a nation on the other side of the globe, the total is remarkably low. The liberal press just can’t stand to see any good work from the military and will do their best to obfuscate the real battlefield situation should we be winning. Heard much news from Iraq lately? You won’t, because it’s generally good news of progress, and that doesn’t serve to help elect Obama.

FORT DIX TRIAL: The trial of five foreign-born Muslim men accused of plotting to sneak onto the Fort Dix, New Jersey, Army post and kill soldiers begins today in Camden. All face possible life in prison. The question is why they are not facing the death penalty. It seems to me plotting to attack a U.S. military installation in time of war would qualify for the ultimate penalty. Liberals and other apologists for terrorists are saying this type of preemptive prosecution troubles them. Perhaps we should have waited until an actual attack took place and soldiers were killed. The most troubling aspect of this is the fact that these foreign terrorists are being accorded full legal rights just like any other American citizen. The five should be in GITMO until the war is over.

KIM JONG IL ILL?: North Korea is poised for a “major announcement” concerning the health of its leader, 66 year old Kim Jong Il. The little dictator hasn’t been seen since mid-August amid rumors of a stroke or a military coup. We can only hope the “dear leader” is dead or incapacitated. We eagerly await further news from the isolated and starving communist nation.

FALLING OIL PRICES HURT CHAVEZ: Earlier this year crude oil prices topped $145 a barrel. That price had dropped to $71.85 by Friday. Oil profits had allowed Venezuela’s leader to play the big man in South America, spreading money around to nearby nations and financing massive social spending in his own country. Estimates suggest oil would have to stay at or above $95 a barrel for Chavez to balance his budget. Chavez’s promised oil refinery for Nicaragua now sits rusting among the weeds. Hopefully oil prices will continue their downward trend, easing the pain on American consumers and putting the screws to petty tyrants like Chavez.

NOBAMA: TOO RISKY

2008-10-19T23:54:00.000-04:00

NOBAMA: TOO RISKY

Presidential elections are usually a choice between the lesser of two evils, and this cycle is certainly no exception. It is extremely rare to find a candidate that exactly matches our own philosophy. Only once in my voting lifetime have I had the opportunity to cast a ballot for a President I knew would nearly identically match my own ethos, and that was Ronald Reagan in 1984. Every other election since has been a compromise, some big, some small. As this election nears, every voter must consider both the times in which we are living and the experience and attributes of those running. Most of us can name someone else we would rather have as our next President, but that is fantasy. The reality is that there is only the one choice, unless you care to waste your ballot on a third party candidate who will not win.

The first factor is the situation in which we find ourselves currently. We are involved in two wars on the other side of the globe. Our national economy and indeed that of the entire world has been rocked by the mortgage mess and falling home values. Politicians of every stripe have been caught being naughty or outright corrupt. Congressional approval ratings are abysmal thanks to the complete incompetence of Democrat leadership on nearly every issue. More than seven years have passed since 9/11, and Bin Laden remains alive and free to taunt us with an occasional video tape. Our ports and borders remain unsecured, allowing a free flow of illegal immigrants and possibly Al Qaeda members. Iraq has improved but isn’t quite completely secured yet. Iran continues its seemingly inexorable march toward nukes while their leader preaches the destruction of Israel. Pakistan holds nuclear weapons under suspect security arrangements with a military heavily infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers. North Korea is a continuing problem with no clear leader and no firm resolution in sight. Africa is beset by AIDS, political violence, and famine despite decades of international assistance. In South America, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela consorts with our enemies and behaves like the petty tyrant he really is. Anywhere one looks around the globe there are situations that directly threaten our national security. That only scratches the surface. In short, this is no time for amateurs nor is there time for learning on the job. The new President will have a full plate from day one.

Barak Hussein Obama has done next to nothing. If his brilliant new ideas were so hot, why has he done absolutely nothing in the Senate since arriving? He has authored no important legislation and made no significant progress on anything. Remember that this is at a time when his own party controlled both the House and Senate with significant margins. It would be different had a Republican majority prevented him from accomplishing his goals, but that was not the case. Even if his record as an Illinois legislator is paper thin. Reaching further back into his history, I still have no idea what a “community organizer” is.

Senator Obama’s associations from the past are at least concerning. He still has not answered to how he could sit in church year after year and not have a problem with Reverend Wright’s sermons damning the United States. Obama described Wright as his “spiritual advisor” until scrutiny forced him to distance himself from the reverend. Then there’s the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Senator Obama boldly lied when questioned about Ayers during the last debate. McCain pointed out that Obama had begun his political career in Ayers’ living room, an established fact that Obama falsely denied. Ayers is a man who participated in the bombing of the Pentagon and a New York City Police station and to this day expresses no regrets. Senator Obama constantly claims all the violence took place when he was eight years old. That is a diversion and doesn’t explain or excuse their associations in more recent times. Obama is certainly the most inexperienced man ever to receive the nomination of a major party for President. One term as United States Senator, a stint in the Illinois legislature, and time as a “community organizer” (whatever that means) is the extent of his resume. He has no military experience, not even indirectly. He has no experience as an executive. What he has is the ability to say nothing better than anyone in quite a while. Certainly his rise to prominence is impressive politically but not enough to qualify him for the office.

John McCain has not been a reliable conservative in the past, nor is he espousing uniformly conservative policies now. He has made a career of defying the party when he was needed to pass important legislation. Far too often McCain sided with Democrats and proposed or furthered bills on matters that were not exactly on the top of the Republican agenda. He has spent his political career not as an executive, but as a legislator. He has shown a disturbing propensity to compromise on important issues, an important tool for a Senator, but not necessarily as good for POTUS. Some of his recent proposals, like $300B to buy up home mortgages, smack of unadulterated socialism. McCain has spent the last decade poking a finger in the eyes of conservatives at every opportunity. Now he comes asking for our votes and laying a dubious claim to Reagan conservatism. McCain is fortunate that he is running now, when America needs a man experienced in military policy.

I must address the disappointing Obama endorsement by Colin Powell. The general was brought into the national security staff and later appointed Secretary of State under Republican administrations. Powell was a total disappointment at State, failing to secure U.S. access to attack Iraq from the north through Turkey and throughout generally opposing the policies of the very administration he served. Powell endorsed Obama today on “Meet the Press”, no surprise given Powell’s questionable behavior since he left the government. He has fashioned himself as some sort of neutral wise man. Never mind the fact that he is during time of war NOT endorsing a fellow Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war schooled in military command. No, no, instead let’s endorse a guy whose resume is transparent. General Powell lost his credibility long ago, and now it seems he is losing his mind as well.

John McCain is the only choice. It will require some nose-holding in the voting booth, but there really is no other choice. Barak Obama as President would be dangerous for America. His distorted world view, wrong-headed policies, and radical associations from the past should be enough to put off most voters. Unfortunately the media is in the midst of a torrid affair with Obama, and they spend all their ink covering over any matter that might prevent his election. It will be interesting to see how far the press will go in these last two weeks.

Fear for the republic should Obama and his ACORN defrauders manage to get him elected. Jimmy Carter, anyone?

DEBATE 07 OCT 08

2008-10-07T23:45:00.002-04:00

DEBATE IN THE ROUND: Last night’s Presidential debate wasn’t exactly a thriller. The potential of the town hall format was wasted by moderator Tom Brokaw’s poor choice of questions from both email and the assembled crowd of allegedly undecided voters. Of course most of the discussion was concerned with recent economic matters and the home mortgage situation, dooming the entire evening to a very dry doom.

Obama predictably blamed the Bush administration and deregulation policy of the last eight years, ignoring the role of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He continued to make his outrageous promise to go through the federal budget with an axe “line by line”. Anybody want to tell the Senator that money bills must originate from the House? The President does not have the line item veto to do such a thing. Even more disturbing was Obama’s reference to “coordinating with other countries” on matters of economic policy. That sort of internationalism is the last thing we need right now. Another part of Obama’s mantra is pointing out that the federal budget was in surplus when George W. took office. Never mind that little, um, WAR that came along. Naturally no Democrat could discuss economics without engaging in a little class warfare, and the Illinois Senator is no different. He continues to harp on “middle class” tax cuts and appears oblivious to the fact that most small businesses are sole proprietorships that file federal taxes as individuals. These businesses would be crushed by Obama’s tax hikes and massive new spending. Senator McCain said some of the right things, but more disturbing was his proposal to sink the federal government $300B deep into the home mortgage market by having Treasury buy up mortgages. The taxpayers are sure to get soaked to the bone on that one. It is remarkable that leaders of both parties have an instant reflex to deepen government involvement in the markets, fleeing like lemmings toward a high socialist cliff. Gee, the feds have done so well with all their other programs, let’s have them start taking over our economy and healthcare.

The foreign policy portion of the event was notable only in the fact that it was another display of the dangers of making Barak Hussein Obama the next Commander in Chief. He even referred to “moral interests” being a factor in determining proper use of American forces. He continues to insist upon withdrawing forces from Iraq as an answer for Afghanistan as well as repeatedly promise to strike in Pakistan if necessary. The question was actually about strategy for the Afghan front, and Senator McCain correctly responded by deferring to General Petraeus. Both gentlemen essentially backed Israel in the event of an attack by Iran, vowed to prevent the Iranians from developing nukes, and promised to prevent a “second Holocaust”.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS:
1. Seeing Senator McCain interact with a Navy veteran in the crowd was touching and insightful. McCain patted the man’s back and warmly shook his hand as he thanked him for his service to our nation. Obama didn’t bother to get out of his chair to thank the guy.
2. Cindy McCain wore BLUE while Michelle Obama wore RED. Shouldn’t that have been opposite? Anyone besides me notice?
3. McCain needs to get some fresh new phrases to use. He’s wearing out “my friends” and “the point is”. He even dusted off “naked aggression”, one that never fails to make me smile.
4. Both candidates willfully violated the time limits and the little green, yellow and red lights intended to guide them, and Brokaw kept whining about it.
5. At the end of the affair, Obama and McCain moved to shake hands, blocking Brokaw’s view of the giant teleprompter and nearly causing him an aneurism.

The scary part of the whole election is the idea of Obama at the controls of the mightiest military force the world has ever known in a time of war. John McCain doesn’t exactly thrill me, but there’s just no way I can vote for a man with no military experience at all in time of war. It’s nearly irresponsible. With less than four weeks remaining until Election Day, Americans face a choice they and our military will have to live with for years to come. Meanwhile our enemies continue to plan and plot to kill more of us.

Vote carefully.

MCCAIN VS. OBAMA DEBATE ROUND 1

2008-09-26T22:44:00.003-04:00

Arizona Senator John McCain squared off against Illinois Senator Barack Obama Friday night in a spirited debate. The event, held on the University of Mississippi ("Ole Miss") campus, was originally billed as a foreign policy only debate. Unfortunately nearly half the time available was spent on economic issues currently in the headlines. The format provided for a two minute answer to each question and then a five minute period for free discussion during which the candidates were permitted to address and question each other directly.

About ten minutes before the start of festivities, I surfed over to CSPAN2 to check out their raw feed. Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS's "NewsHour" spent seven minutes sternly warning the audience about cheering, cell phones, and other possible disruptions. He repeatedly whined about how hard and important his job was going to be. Lehrer appointed Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain as persons in charge of enforcing silence in the audience, even telling them to "take names". Can anyone in America imagine Michelle or Cindy dragging an unruly protester down the aisle and out the door? It made me glad the Secret Service was nearby: you can't miss the guys with ear pieces and slight bulges in their suits. I don't think either lady could possibly be ready to muscle someone out of the hall.

The first forty minutes of the debate supposed to be about foreign policy at a time when America is at war were consumed by discussion of the bailout bill. All of sudden and thus allegedly requiring immediate action, the Bush administration has proposed a potential $700B bailout of failing mortgage lenders to prevent the collapse of large financial institutions and the credit markets. Never mind the outrageous concept of a wholesale government takeover of a significant portion of a private market, and please don't notice that the money required to do this will be borrowed from foreign investors, largely China. The whole thing smells like Sovietization of the American economy. Since when is it a good idea for the federal government to take financial responsibility for either poor business or poor personal decisions? The Democrats assert this is all the result of eight years of Bush policy to deregulate markets, ignoring the fact that the concept of offering mortgages to people who clearly couldn't afford them began under Slick Willie. Like all government money, once it began the program snowballed into a monstrosity too big to sustain. It was disappointing such a large portion of the evening was spent on blah economics. We won't be worried about Wall Street CEO salaries if America isn't secure. Dead people don't get new mortgages or invest in the stock market.

The first foreign policy question concerned the lessons of Iraq. Senator McCain pointed out his push for strategy change early on in Iraq, praised the "great" General Petreaus, and hung the potential bad outcomes had we failed around his opponents neck. Obama originally proposed a staged, sixteen month withdrawal of American forces from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground, a policy clearly proven wrong by the success of the surge. The Illinois Senator also lauded Petraeus as "brilliant", odd praise from a man who didn't actually go to Iraq until the conflict was more than nine hundred days old. Obama was wrong about the surge and attempts to partially cover by jumping on the Petraeus bandwagon. Too late, Senator, you missed that train long ago. McCain brought the Iraq discussion into sharp focus by pointing out that Obama clearly doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy, something the liberal media glosses over almost as much as Democrat Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's verbal gaffes. Obama continues to claim that Al Qaeda is more powerful now than at any time since 9/11, a dubious assertion at best, and that Iraq distracted us from our fight against them and our search for UBL. Senator Obama apparently thinks the American military is incapable of multiple missions.

The question of more troops brought the candidates to the subject of Afghanistan. Senator Obama painted a gloomy picture of a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda running roughshod while U.S. forces are tied down in Iraq. He proposed an immediate boost of two brigades and warned of his willingness to strike at Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan if the Pakis are unwilling or unable to do so. Senator McCain reminded us that America had largely washed its hands of the entire region after the Soviet withdrawal and warned about the clear dangers of publicly threatening military action inside Pakistan. Obama accused the Bush administration of coddling former Paki President Musharraf, ignoring the fact that Pakistan was a failed Islamic state in possession of nuclear weapons when he took over. The candidates then conducted a "battle of the bracelets", both explaining why they wore one inscribed with the name of a U.S. soldier killed in action.

Moderator Jim Lehrer then moved the discussion to the threat of nuclear Iran. Both candidates stressed the danger to Israel and the potential nuclear arms race that would ensue throughout the region. Both gentlemen agreed that Iran with nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, but their ideas about how to get there differed sharply. Obama is sticking to his concept of direct talks. That's all well and good to sit down with whatever rogue world leader you can think of, but it lends legitimacy to them and their outrageous words and actions as well as diminishes the American presidency. Does anyone really want to see Cuba's Raoul Castro or Iran's Ahmadinejad strolling the Rose Garden or the media circus that would result from a meeting without precondition? McCain more sensibly proposed a league of democracies, an idea long overdue given the uselessness of the United Nations. No matter how many economic sanctions are proposed against Iran, Russia and China will kill them in the Security Council. Neither man was willing to unequivocally commit to military action at any point while simultaneously refusing to eliminate it as an option. The rest of the world, least of all Old Europe, will not help us with Iran, and pretending otherwise is foolhardy.

Russia was the next item on the agenda, fair enough considering the provocative military and economic actions they've taken lately. Resumption of Russian bomber flights off the U.S. coast, the occasional restriction of natural gas supplies to eastern Europe, and the invasion of Georgia have been on their hit parade recently. Obama seemed a little lost, digressing into economics and unbelievably ending his comment with a reference to global warming (huh?). Senator McCain called it like it is: Russia is a KGB-run Putin dictatorship fueled by petrodollars. McCain proposed adding Georgia and Ukraine to NATO and continuing programs to secure the "loose" nuclear weapons left from the former Soviet Union.

The final question was about the potential for another 9/11 on American soil. Both Senators claimed we are safer but not yet safe. McCain focused on border security and Obama on the danger of suitcase nukes being smuggled into the country. The question seemed like a liberal media trap to get McCain on record guaranteeing security or some such nonsense. Nice try, no bite.

McCain clearly won the foreign policy portion of the evening hands down. Whether voters clearly understand the economic issues discussed is another matter. McCain repeatedly and correctly referred to Obama as naive. The Illinois Senator shows his inexperience each time the use of American power abroad is discussed. Funny that tonight will be overshadowed by the Vice Presidential debate next week, featuring Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin versus Democrat Deleware Senator Joe Biden. Palin has become a political star and Biden is prone to make verbal mistakes. Should be fun.

TRIUMPHANT RETURN

2008-09-22T23:46:00.003-04:00

NOTE: I am returning after a summer hiatus from writing. My normal subject matter of war and politics will return tomorrow after I vent on matters of personal conduct.

WHAT IS A GOOD PERSON?

Occasionally I will refer to someone as a "good man" or "good woman". It seems like a simple statement yet carries a specific connotation. We have all met individuals we would never call "good" for a variety of reasons. What exactly are reasonable standards of conduct for civilized folks nowadays? Of course we can generally accept the Ten Commandments standards, but a few deserve special comment.

Honesty comes to mind first. Sure, we've all told a little white lie here and there, but what I am referring to is complete honesty with those closest to you. Intentional deception is a heinous form of lying. Fooling someone into doing ones bidding or putting up a facade for whatever reason are unacceptable. Lying by omission is another sneaky form of dishonesty. Intentionally not revealing information vital to the individual involved is just as evil as a direct lie. Those who dabble around the edges of treachery are only fooling themselves and will eventually suffer the same disgrace as those who dive in all the way. It is extremely hurtful to people because each lie slowly erodes confidence and trust in the offender. Frequent liars often get caught in their own webs and are usually quickly identified. This is a deep character flaw that is not easily remedied or managed. Liars are not good people.

Most of us have suffered through adult relationships that saw some form of duplicitous behaviour that either bordered on or actually was cheating. Think about that: an individual gives a commitment, either in deed or word, to be monogamous, then later takes great effort to abandoning their own word. Breaking that vow is in itself lying, and there's usually a lot of it when a cheater is at work. Some people simply cannot commit to another individual within the framework of adult relations. They simply don't have the mental discipline or strength to conduct themselves with honor or control themselves. Others drift from new person to new person to soak up as much new attention as possible, an early sign of potential for cheating. Seeking a love relationship outside of a commitment qualifies, with or without actual sex. Cheaters are not good people.

Keeping your word is a related subject. Promises mean something. People who give a specific promise and then do not follow through are making themselves liars. There is very little hope for mankind if we cannot count on each others' word of honor. Promises were not made to be broken, they were made to allow people to trust each other. Anyone who will not keep a given promise should be viewed with a highly skeptical eye and not trusted further. Those who break promises are not good people.

Being a good person comes down to a simple element: can you be trusted to do the right thing? Good people do not require supervision or constant reminders to behave in an acceptable manner. It is their nature. People caught lying or being intentionally deceptive should not be trusted further until they redeem themselves wholly. None of us have time in our lives for the aggravation and humiliation of dealing with bad people in our personal lives. Our time on this planet is limited and shouldn't be wasted on those not even good enough to be honest or those who cannot treat other individuals with even the most basic of respect.

NANCY REAGAN HOSPITALIZED

2008-02-17T22:24:00.002-05:00

OUR THOUGHTS THIS EVENING ARE WITH FORMER FIRST LADY NANCY REAGAN, HOSPITALIZED AFTER A FALL AT HOME. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS OFFERED THESE DETAILS:

Nancy Reagan Hospitalized After Falling

9 minutes ago @ 2217 EST

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) — Former first lady Nancy Reagan was hospitalized Sunday after falling in her home in Bel-Air but is doing well, her spokeswoman said.

Reagan, 86, was taken to St. John's Health Center, where doctors determined she did not break a hip as feared, spokeswoman Joanne Drake said.

Drake said Reagan was doing well and would stay the night in the same room where former President Ronald Reagan stayed after he broke his hip at home in 2001. He died June 5, 2004.

The former first lady is "joking and visiting in her room," Drake said.

Reagan's family physician recommended the overnight stay "as a precaution," Drake said.

Nancy Reagan's last major public appearance was at the Jan. 30 Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., where she sat with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

GET WELL SOON!

JINGOREPORT 07 FEB 08

2008-02-06T22:59:00.000-05:00

PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS FINAL WORD: Yesterday's Super Tuesday primary results make it increasingly clear Arizona Senator John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President. That does not bode well for the conservative agenda, as previously detailed. While I state once again that I have great respect for his military service, I cannot endorse or support Senator McCain. Future postings will instead focus on foreign affairs and the war.

TOP MILITARY MAN ABETS SURRENDER MONKEYS: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen has described American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as being tired and in need of a rest. Mullen also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Army deployments should be reduced to twelve months. Regardless of whether or not these statements accurately depict the situation, Admiral Mullen should know better than to throw that sort of red meat to defeatists on the Hill who will use any rationale to justify surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Does the admiral not have a legislative liason? Can we get him one? These are the sort of statements that should be made only in closed session to keep our enemies from picking up on them for their own use. The Pentagon's proposed budget for next year includes $20.5B to increase the Army by 7,000 and the Marines by 5,000. As always, the amount of money and troop increases are too small and very late, but none of that gives the admiral a pass on this one. And shouldn't our JCS Chairman be a Army or Marine general, since Iraq and Afghanistan are largely ground operations? Former Chairman Pete Pace, we miss you already.

GEE, THANKS, GERMANY: Germany continues to be a reluctant ally in Afghanistan. The Germans have announced the deployment of 250 additional troops to replace a Norwegian unit. The catch is that they will be stationed in the northern area of the country, where the Taliban are relatively inactive. The Germans and other allies in Afghanistan have repeatedly refused U.S. and Canadian requests to send troops south, much to the dismay of SECDEF. Other members of the administration have been beating that drum also. SECSTATE Condi Rice, in London for meetings with PM Gordon Brown, reinforced that message and said only a few nations have troops in the south. It's not surprising, especially for Germany. This especially dismays me, having served two years in Nurnberg during the Cold War. I expect more from a nation of an estimated 87 million people. 250, that's the best you can do? Never mind, fellas, as usual American will have to do the heavy lifting alone while alleged allies stand by fecklessly. Old Europe only helps when it benefits them, and apparently fighting terrorists isn't high on their list. What a bunch of turds.

IRANIAN MISSILE TEST: Iran tested a rocket on Monday it said would eventually allow it to deploy satellites. Yeah, right, and there are no homosexuals in Iran, either. The Pentagon responded by emphasizing the urgency of ongoing negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic for deployment of a missile defense system. The Polish FM said last week in Washington that agreement in principle had been reached on initial deployment. Europe might want to step up the pace a little. Iranian nuclear and missile technology is proceeding full speed ahead, and since no one in Europe will try to stop them now, they might want to take adequate defensive measures. If their not going to take a stronger stand against the Iranian nuclear program, they better start building an effective missile interceptor system and fallout shelters.

ANOTHER SECRET REVEALED: The existance of a secret facility at GITMO for high value detainees has been confirmed by the AP. Lawyers for Majid Kahn, a Baltimore man who allegedly plotted to blow up gas stations, originally revealed the secret facility to the media in December. They should be hung. Now those same lawyers are claiming they can't discuss the matter further because of a gag order. It seems a bit late for that. When are we going to start protecting our national secrets again? One problem is the complete lack of criminal prosecutions for this sort of damaging leak. No one is ever held accountable, so there is no fear of punishment. Those who reveal vital defense information are aiding and abetting the enemy, whether it's an attorney or a liberal, defeatist newspaper. Shame on them.

PAKI CEASE FIRE: Word of another cease fire is coming out of Pakistan, and that is not good news. Musharraf may be looking for a little help with the upcoming February 18 parliamentary elections. His past political deals with pro-Taliban militants have allowed them to regroup and grow stronger to launch more attacks in Afghanistan against American troops. When you're enemy asks for a cease fire, press them all the harder. It means their weak, and that means the time to eliminate them is now, not after they rest and recuperate. Musharraf better get his act together before America is forced to do the killing he seems so unwilling to undertake.

A LIBERAL KODAK MOMENT IN L.A.

2008-01-31T21:54:00.000-05:00

Senators Clinton and Obama faced off in a political joust Thursday evening at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles. CNN televised the event under the moderation of Wolf Blitzer, assisted by Jean Cummings of Politico.com and Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times. This was the last debate for either party before next week's Super Tuesday, with primary voting for both parties in twenty-two states. The audience was packed with California politicians and celebrities. I try to ignore Hollywood, but I did recognize Jason Alexander, Rob Reiner, Stevie Wonder, and Pierce Brosnan.

The Obama campaign tactically announced on the eve of the debate today that they had raised $32M in January alone, a staggering figure helped along by 170,000 new donors. Obama's South Carolina win, followed by the Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorsements, have him on an undeniable roll. Whether he can competee on a national scale will be tested next week. Hillary, meanwhile, has kept Slick Willie on a tight leash this week. His comments comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson and his previous tirade against a reporter forced the Clinton campaign to reel in Bill a little, at least for now. Don't doubt that if the race tightens further and goes on longer, the Clinton machine and it's army of private detectives will launch attacks that will make all the previous ones seem mild by comparison.

I have to issue a brief disclaimer. It is nearly impossible for me to tell who has won a Democrap debate. I have no frame of reference. I disagree with nearly everything that is said. I try to concentrate on the particular words and phrases used by the Dems that reveal their true intent or illustrate clear differences with conservative philosophy. Sure, I can tell when someone gets in a good shot, but beyond that, I'm at a loss. Listening to the talking heads just confuses the issue even more. And the truth is that there are very little policy differences between the Democrat candidates. Their contest this year is a matter of style and experience, not major policy fights.

The candidates were introduced simultaneously and walked out together, so it was a little hard to determine if there was any initial crowd bias. Some cheering occurred in response to both candidates at later points, but it wasn't dramatic. Wolf offered time for an opening statement, and off they went. Obama used the majority of his time to praise John Edwards, who dropped out Wednesday, in a naked appeal for the support of Edwards voters. Hillary instead attacked the "failed" Bush administration, and she definitely has experience with a failed adminstration. Each candidate was then given a chance to point out specific policy differences between them. Hillary started by attacking the Republican candidates, a general election pitch. She also called health care a "right", something I could not find in the Constitution. Clinton then spelled out her solution to the increase in housing foreclosures, which sounded very similar to the big government plan John McCain detailed last night in the Republican debate. Hillary's proposal to freeze interest rates is nothing less than a government takeover of the markets. Socialism, anyone? Obama admitted their health plans are "95 percent similar," but said his was absent mandates that would logically require enforcement of some kind. He declared drug company profits "oversize", an odd view of capitalism for a potential President to hold. Obama then landed a firm smack to the forehead of John McCain by pointing out the "tax cuts for the wealthy" language McCain used when twice voting against the Bush tax reductions. If McCain is the Republican nominee, we'll see that again, even though both Dems openly admitted they will surely raise taxes if elected.

The discussion then moved on to illegal immigration, and this is where they lose me completely. They both support a "comprehensive" immigration reform, and that translates to "amnesty". Obama refused to even acknowledge the effect illegals have on American jobs, terming the idea "scapegoating". Hillary was pressed on drivers licenses for illegals, a question she originally stumbled on in the Philadelphia debate. She twice attempted to run out the clock without answering by comparing Republicans to jackbooted Nazis for insisting immigration law be enforced and citing her support from a migrant farmworkers union. She eventually said she opposes licenses for illegals, but it took a while to get there. Obama cited public safety concerns for his support of licenses, and then Hillary uttered one of the most insincere and ironic sentences I have ever heard: "We have to respect the dignity of every human being." That's a real change in philosophy if she meant it. She has respect for illegal immigrants and criminals, but not for human life created yet unborn. Killing fetuses by the tens of millions is acceptable, but she "respects" EVERY human being?

The broadcast returned late after a commercial to candidate response to an apparent question about qualifications to be President. Senator Obama detailed his meager experience and said he has the skills that are needed. Hillary immediately threw out her "35 years" pitch. Again, you don't call the plumber's wife to fix a leak. She claimed visits to eighty-two foreign nations, like tourism is an executive skill, and topped off her response by maintaining she had once negotiated with (drumroll please)....Macedonia! Wow, I bet that was a tough deal to complete. The Macedonians are known worldwide for their diplomatic skills. A question about Romney's business experience gave Hillary the chance to swipe at Bush again, and Obama suggested Mitt had gotten a bad return on his investment in the campaign so far. The two played nice over the Kennedy endorsements and then Hillary was asked about the possibility of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. As in the past, she instantly defended Slick Willie's administration by citing the "surplus" when Bill left office. Never mind that war, balance the budget.

The debate again went to commercial, so I grabbed the remote like a hungry man grabbing a biscuit. Mitt Romney on Hannity calling McCain's tactics "Nixonian", and I thought that was pretty cool, as well as accurate. CNN returned from break with an exterior shot, and I saw something that warmed my heart: Ron Paul supporters. It's just good to know he's bedeviling the Democrats also.

Iraq policy arose next, with the candidates differing very little on future policy. Both are prepared to order a precipitous withdrawal, ignoring the progress of the surge and the sacrifice so far, and without regard to consequence. Hillary said the Iraqi government has "no time" remaining, strange for a member of an organization that can't issue checks in less than four months. Clinton proposed withdrawing one or two American brigades per month, but expressed a concern for the Iraqis who have supported us. She's not concerned enough to keep Al Qaeda from beheading them, but she's concerned none the less. Hillary even admitted and shrugged off the potential of further Syrian and Iranian involvement in Iraqi sectarian strife. Not only is she willing to surrender to Al Qaeda, she is prepared to abandon the battlefield to the two largest state sponsors of terror. Obama asserted our effort in Iraq has distracted us from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Latin America. Okay, I get the first two, but Latin America? Senator Obama beat Hillary over the head with her vote for the Iraq war, with Wolf Blitzer helping by asking Clinton if she was "naive" for doing so. She tried to assert that her vote was for further diplomacy and not military action, but that's tired and everyone knows it's disinginuous. Both have pandered to the cut and run wing of their party, and it will be hard for them to seem responsible on the issue in the general election, especially if substantial progress continues.

The broadcast returned late from it's final break, an annoyance considering they have clocks. The final segment was a big Democrat hug. Hillary was asked about Bill's role in her campaign and potentially in the White House, and it drew a hideous cackle from her that chilled the blood. She also described the presidency as a "lonely" job, something that may partially explain how the fat intern ended up under her husband's desk. The candidates were then quizzed about running together. Obama called the matter premature, but Hillary took the opportunity and ran with it. She gave a thirty second plug for her upcoming "national town hall" on television and the web. It was cheesy and opportunistic, paralleling her entire campaign.

No more debates for a while. The next ones are after Super Tuesday, February 27th and 28th in my home state of Ohio. Who knows what kind of political carnage may have occurred by then. It's up to the voters, as it should be. Just don't begin to think next Tuesday will settle either race, because that's unlikely.

REAGAN LIBRARY DEBATE

2008-01-30T21:42:00.000-05:00

The surviving Republican Presidential candidates convened for a debate Wednesday evening hosted by CNN in the Air Force One pavilion of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. There could not have been a less appropriate setting, considering none of the gentlemen still remaining in the race quite fit the Reagan philosophy. Questions were posed by moderator Anderson Cooper with assistance from Jim Vandehei of Politico.com and Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times. Instead of dividing the evening up into issue segments, I decided to score the debate like a sporting event. Yeah, yeah, I know this is about selecting the leader of the free world and all that, but the Republicans have now debated at least a hundred times. I can only take so much, so why not have some fun with it and declare a winner at the end? Each candidate was awarded one point for each time they stated something with which I agreed, and one negative point for each time they said something that I found objectionable. The scores have been tallied, so let's look at the statistics, starting with the losers.

Ron Paul earned three good, solid kicks in the testicles for the number of times he used the word "empire" to describe American foreign policy. Listen closely, grandpa: America does not now nor has it ever maintained an "empire". We just don't fit the definition. United States forces in no way rule over foreign lands as absolute authorities, nor do we go around the planet absorbing smaller, weaker nations. Paul's assertion is that we can simply withdraw from the globe behind our oceans and no one will bother us. It's both stunningly stupid and stunningly naive for a man of his experience. His foreign policy totally ignores the last say, oh, seventy or eighty years of world history. His presence in the campaign has been a sad little joke that has wasted everyone's time. I will never get back the time I wasted listening to Ron Paul's vacuous and assanine philosophy, and I deeply resent that. I cannot explain the money he has raised or his continued presence in the race. Having a substantive debate over critical domestic and foreign policy matters is not helped by the presence of some braying jackass who has zero chance of getting the nomination. And stop saying "empire".

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee scored a big three points. Now, admittedly, I may have a residual bias against Huck from Iowa. I may never get over the floating cross commercial. It made me think of a Christian version of "Big Brother". Huckabee scored a point for his strong advocacy of federalism and the right of states to more freely legislate, a largely missing subject from this campaign. He also scored for wondering about borrowing money from China to finance consumer puchases of Chinese goods in an effort to stimulate the economy. Huck didn't score for a long stretch until the end, when his reply to a question about who Ronald Reagan would endorse, he said, "I don't know if he would endorse me, but I endorse him." Governor Huckabee complained several times about the amount of time allotted to McCain and Romney, and he was right. The press always neglect coverage of real issues to gather around a fight like children on a playground.

Arizona Senator John McCain scored plenty. Unfortunately for him, all his points were negative, and by the end of the evening, he stood at negative ten. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. When asked about his record as a conservative, McCain used his stock phrase to describe compromising conservative principles and submitting to the Democrats: "reaching across the aisle to get something done". I don't want "something" done, I want the right thing done. I vote Republican to promote conservative policies, not meld them with liberal claptrap. McCain's response to California's attempts to more strictly regulate carbon emissions devolved into a rambling version of Gore-style global warming hysteria. His answer to the subprime lending situation is massive government regulation. He continues to push the absurd claim that the Republican congressional losses in 2006 were solely because of spending, a simplistic argument that ignores every other possible factor. McCain's defense of his proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, formed in cooperation with Ted Kennedy, continues to be unconvincing and pathetic. He also could not defend his Iraq timetable sucker punch of Romney on the eve of the Florida primary, and even the liberal media so in love with McCain seem to agree it was dishonest. He lost another point for complaining about "negative ads". I call those "political ads". You'd think a man who spent five years a prisoner of the North Vietnamese could take a few jabs. Shortly after his complaint, he took a shot at Romney's experience as "for profit", characterizing his as "for patriotism". So, he seems to have a problem with capitalism and thinks commanding a naval squadron is relevant experience in dealing with the national economy? Another shot at Romney's business experience cost McCain another point when he said, "He bought, and he sold, and some people lost their jobs." Again, a shot at capitalism. When did John McCain morph into John Edwards? McCain was assessed a tenth and final negative point for constantly saying he was a "footsoldier in the Reagan revolution". He was more like a passerby or witness than he was a footsoldier. McCain's performance was flat and unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was today's endorsement of McCain by Rudy Guliani, brazenly conducted at the library as well. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will reportedly endorse McCain tomorrow as well. Big deal.

Former Massachussets Governor Mitt Romney finished the night with eight points, well ahead of the other fellows. Mitt's justified interpretation of McCain's record scored first, and Romney even threw in the New York Times endorsement of McCain as proof. Romney correctly disputed Huckabee's assertion that building infrastructure can help the economy in the short term, and pointed out that McCain was one of only two Republicans in the Senate to vote against the Bush tax cuts. He strongly supported deporting illegal immigrants and assailed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. Romney said Ronald Reagan would find McCain's tactics on the eve of the Florida primary "reprehensible", and he was right. He scored again over the same subject by asking McCain, "How are YOU and expert on MY position?" Mitt's last point came during his summation question about a theoretical Reagan endorsement. He concisely stated the Reagan philosophy and formula for winning elections and aggressively made his cas for the nomination. Huckabee's response to the same question was properly humble, but Romney made a good case for himself within the Reagan model.

There have been two debates since Fred Thompson dropped out, I have judged them both objectively, and in my estimation Mitt Romney has easily won them both. His challenge going forward will be to somehow slow the snowball effect of McCain's South Carolina and Florida wins. I can't say yet that I would vote for Romney, but it's looking more and more probable with each debate. If I can't vote for the candidate I really wanted, then I'll have to pick the best of what's available. The evening made clear once again that McCain certainly isn't it.

LAST STATE OF THE UNION FOR BUSH

2008-01-28T22:17:00.000-05:00

President Bush delivered his seventh and final State of the Union speech to the 110th United States Congress Monday evening in the House chamber. The annual event is the single largest gathering of federal government authority in one place at one time, and as one would imagine, security is ironclad. The rituals of the affair are usually more interesting than the actual speech itself. The audience is always a Who's Who of Washington politics, and this time was no exception. First Lady Laura Bush was accompanied for the first time by both Jenna and Barbara. Democratic Presidential candidates Senators Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were present, along with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Alito, Kennedy, and Souder. The President entered as usual after being announced and proceeded down the aisle, glad-handing with members of Congress along the way. It's funny to see which members seem to get the seat next to the aisle every time so they can appear with the President. Some of them are sworn political enemies to the President, but no one can deny the power of television. The customary applause continued as the President delivered a hard copy to House Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Cheney. The roar from the audience continued long enough for Bush to manage three hand shakes with Pelosi. Let's all hope he has hand sanitizer readily available for just such an emergency.

The President began with domestic issues, and the economy was at the top of the list. Bush encouraged the Senate to pass the growth package as soon as possible and without a load of pork added. He also made his pitch for making his tax cuts permanent. In the best line of the night, Bush said he appreciated the enthusiasm of those who would voluntarily pay higher taxes, and said the IRS takes "check or money order". He also vowed to veto any tax increase and by executive order cut 151 wasteful federal programs, saving $18B almost immediately. Bush then laid down the law on earmarks, the spending hidden in legislation without a vote. Saying Congress had failed his request in 2007 to cut them, Bush said he would veto any spending measure that did not cut earmarks be at least half in number and total. He then threw down a gauntlet by saying he would order federal agencies to ignore spending not voted on by the Congress. This policy should have been implemented long ago, and it is one Bush can continue until he's gone. The whole section on earmarks elicited an evil Cheney smirk, most entertaining as he sat next to Pelosi and behind the President.

The remainder of the domestic agenda was expressed as a laundry list of the policies the President hopes to maintain or get at least some movement on before he exits. He called for the reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie May, and called on Congress to provide tax-free bonds to refinance mortgages in danger of foreclosure. Bush restated his policies on health care, education, trade, and federal judges. He also supported an international agreement on greenhouse gasses, then made it a fantasy by saying all the major nations (read China and India) would have to be included. Bush challenged Congress to take action on entitlements, now that his proposals on the matter have been rejected. The President continues to to insist that our borders cannot be secured without a guest worker program, a dubious claim at best. Bush has never been shy about big federal spending on domestic programs, and his proposals Monday evening did not disappoint on that count.

The President shifted to events abroad by reviewing the events in that arena over the past seven years. Calling the war "the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century," Bush thanked Congress for it's support on Afghanistan and quickly moved to Iraq. "Some may deny the success of the surge," the President said, "but... Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, ... and this enemy will be defeated." Only the Republican side of the audience rose to cheer that, as often happens during controversial parts of the speech. The Democrat reaction to our undeniable progress in Iraq is a striking denial of reality and reveals their heavy political investment in defeat. Bush promised our military all the tools necessary to defend our nation, and pressured Congress for full funding of our troops on the battlefield. He laid out a gradual troop withdrawal plan for Iraq bringing 20,000 home this year, but only if conditions allow and commanders on the ground recommend doing so. Bush's stance on Iraq has been unwavering, and he will deserve every iota of the credit if we succeed, if for nothing else than refusing to budge.

His emphasis on democracy as a cure for terrorism continues despite dangerous results in the Palestinian territories, as does his inexplicable pursuit of a terrorist state astride Israel. The President called for Iran to abandon it's uranium enrichment and stop support for terror, neither of which is very likely. He did, however, warn Iran that we will defend our troops and our interests in the Persian Gulf. Bush stated American opposition to the genocide in Sudan and support for freedom in Cuba, Zimbabwe, Belarus, and Burma. He also disturbingly requested an additional $50B over the next five years for his African AIDS efforts. That amount of foreign aid could best be used at home or for defense.

The President concluded with veterans affairs. He pointed out funding for veterans programs has increased 95 percent during his administration. Bush called for further funding and a reform of the system. Bob Dole and Donna Shalala, co-chairs of the Commission on Care for Wounded Warriors, were in attendance, and Bush also requested implementation of their recommendations. Our nation would be making a huge leap in veterans care if Congress ever does.

The speech lasted fifty-three minutes and was interrupted by applause seventy times. The networks let the microphones roll as the President made his way out of the chamber. It was a unique insight into the man and the job. It seemed every member wanted an autographed program, and they crowded the aisle and often squeezed the President's shoulder in congratulation. The very same folks will be trying to rip out his political guts tomorrow morning. Members customarily gather in Statuary Hall after the speech to snag interviews and judge the President's performance. It's a fascinating ritual of our republic, regardless of who holds the office. Bush may get some approval for his effort, but the rest will require help from Congress. That's doubtful unless the Dems see political gain in cooperating, a rarity indeed.

CAMPAIGN STATUS REPORT

2008-01-27T12:52:00.000-05:00

Barrack Obama thrashed Hillary Clinton in South Carolina's Democrat primary yesterday, far surpassing his expected vote total. The polls predicted a eight to ten point win for the Illinois Senator, but he finished with a twenty-eight point victory that netted over double the vote total for Hillary. Now the Dems move on to Super Tuesday while the Republican contenders face a Tuesday Florida primary with polls showing a slight Romney advantage over McCain. Now is probably a good time to review the situation on both sides and assess prospects for the future.

The reactions of both sides in the Democrat race last night illustrates the differences in strategy. Obama gave a soaring victory speech calling for unity and rejecting the politics of the past. The Hillary camp sent out a concession email and promptly proceeded to Tennessee. Slick Willie has compared Obama's victory to those of Jesse Jackson in the 1980s, attempting to relegate him to a "black candidate" status. Despite all the pronouncements of Bill Clinton as the most effective politician of our time, his contribution so far has been to divide the Democrat electorate along racial lines. He might have blown his status as the "first black President" over the past two weeks. He managed to turn a small win for Obama into a spanking of epic proportion. The Clintons are running on the idea of a co-presidency, odd for the first viable female candidate. Hillary claims to be strong enough to run for President, but has her husband out on the trail as her hatchet man to do all the dirty work. It's natural for conservatives to support Clinton opponents, but don't be fooled by Senator Obama. He gives a great speech, but he's as far left as they come. The policy differences among the Dems are few and minor. Hillary continues to run the Clinton political machine that feeds opponents into a meat grinder and will do anything to win. If Obama beats Hillary on Super Tuesday, he could be hard to stop with the usual Clinton dirty tricks. The Democrat electorate has tired of the same old dirty tricks and may continue to punish Billary for them.

The Republicans are campaigning across Florida ahead of the Tuesday primary there. Mitt Romney holds a slight poll lead over McCain, Huckabee is a distant third, and Rudy looks near finished. Romney had a superb performance in the last debate, and his business successes in the past have given him credibility to speak credibly on current economic issues. He currently leads in delegates, having won Michigan and Wyoming. A Romney victory could propel him with significant momentum into Super Tuesday. Mitt has enough money to finance his own campaign, so he's in the race to stay. McCain comes off his South Carolina win hoping to make nice with all the conservatives he has smited in the past. Florida is the first primary to allow only Republicans to cast a ballot, so McCain cannot rely on independent support that has helped him in the past. Huckabee is working on proving Iowa was a one time event and that he has no chance anywhere else. Rudy has pinned his hopes on winning Florida, having bypassed the earlier primaries, but the polls show him in fourth place and approaching single digits. The scandals involving his time as mayor of New York reported in November and December didn't help, and neither did his complete absence from the early part of the process.

Both races have developed into two person contests. Mitt and McCain battle it out to go against Obama or Billary. The sure bet is that nothing will be settled anytime soon. The party conventions this summer could be real floor fights instead of coronations. All the candidates will be forced to review their plans after Super Tuesday, and by then the picture may be a little clearer. Until then, sit back and watch the fur fly.

BOCA RATON DEBATE

2008-01-24T23:12:00.000-05:00

The remaining GOP Presidential candidates gathered on the campus of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida, for a debate Thursday evening. NBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams moderated for the MSNBC broadcast. The Florida primary is Saturday, and the consequences are enormous. Rudy has been banking on Florida to restart his campaign, which has essentially fallen off the map. Romney could use a win to add to his delegate lead and slow McCain. Senator McCain needs to win a primary that includes only Republicans to maintain his momentum, and Huckabee could use any bit of traction at all to bolster his flagging bid. My man Fred Thompson has sadly withdrawn, so I was able to view the event somewhat objectively. That's not to say that any of them earned my vote in one evening, but there was a clear winner.

The first portion of the questioning focused on the economy and the recent measures agreed to by Congress and the President on a stimulus package. Senator McCain indicated he will vote yea on the bill, suggested a cut in the corporate tax rate is in order, and then went into his speech about controlling spending and the "bridge to nowhere". Rudy pitched the three rate tax plan several of his supporters have introduced in Congress and extolled mutual foreign investment. Governor Huckabee made points by wondering if borrowing money from China to give American consumers cash to purchase Chinese goods was a wise plan, but then asserted a huge public works infrastructure program would be better than individual taxpayer checks. It might be, but the pork, waste, and various other problems associated with that type of big government plan always slow and reduce its effectiveness. Whiny Ron Paul really annoyed me by using the word "empire" to describe our overseas military commitments and foreign policy. Someone should scream loud enough for retarded grandpa to hear that the United States does not rule other lands as a singular power or with absolute authority. It's the same as suggesting our troops presence as an "occupation". It's offensive to anyone who understands the nature of our armed forces and their intent. In any event, Mitt Romney won the round with his attack on all things Washington and the failures of the federal government. He also showed a commanding knowledge of economic issues and emphasized his successful private sector business experience.

Questions on Iraq found general agreement among the gentlemen concerning the need to continue our efforts and rejection of the Democrat surrender plan. McCain continued his sickening chest-thumping over the corpse of Rummy to support his status as the most committed to success in Iraq. Paul was the only man to say the war was a mistake and not worth the sacrifice, which was followed by cheers in support of Al Qaeda from the Paul supporters present. Romney once again seemed authoritative, and proposed increasing the active duty military force by 100,000 and providing full college tuition for veterans and reservists. Romney also pointed out the idiocy of the Dems on Iraq, and said no credit will be due to "General Hillary." Rudy correctly asserted the Democrat nominee will have a major problem if progress continues in Iraq. Romney's comments on this issue were knowledgeable and his language on the issue was exactly right.

After a commercial break, the candidates were offered a chance to ask questions of each other. It's an intriguing concept full of wild possibilities, none of which were fulfilled. The entire segment illustrated the candidates' refusal to attack at all. Honestly, the Democrat race has been funner to watch lately with Hillary and Obama having really thrown some elbows in their last encounter. Nothing like that occurred last night, a much tamer affair in general. Mitt asked Rudy about China trade, McCain asked Huckabee to defend the fair tax, Paul asked McCain a yawn inspiring economics question, and Rudy asked Mitt about a proposed national catastrophe fund. McCain also somehow sneaked in his global warming pitch. Most striking was Romney's defense of Second Amendment individual rights in a response to a challenge from Huckabee. Romney won the whole round by decrying renewal of the so called "assault weapons" ban that mercifully expired. He did not hesitate to answer firmly and forcefully on the guns issue, and that was reassuring.

Another commercial interruption preceded the most bizarre portion of the entire debate. First, McCain was asked about quotes from his mother, who is 95 years old. I don't know why, but he was asked. Then Russert and Williams started a rapid fire attack on Mitt Romney that backfired badly. It began with a question to Mitt about how to run against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Romney got in a good shot by saying he didn't think Bill in the White House again with nothing to do was a very good idea. Russert interrupted with a snotty "What do you mean?," but Romney ignored him and moved on to say Hillary would be the nominee, not Bill. Mitt scored major points by highlighting the Reagan formula of uniting economic, social, and national defense conservatives to win the general election. Romney was then asked about how much of his personal fortune he has spent so far, an amateurish jab he easily deflected by saying he feels the issues are important enough to warrant his concern and cash. Another question followed that drug up the tired old Mormon faith issue, something the press should have given up long ago. His answer made the moderators look like the bad guys for even asking by attacking their insinuations of religious prejudice among the American people. Just a few moments later, during the next segment, Romney was assailed again on Reagan's tax increase to fund social security. Mitt said raising taxes isn't the answer and spoke in favor of personal accounts and raising the retirement age as first steps. McCain managed to work in "bridge to nowhere" a nauseating third time during the social security portion. Just to show I'm fair, even Ron Paul said something I agreed with by suggesting younger folks should be allowed out of the system because the money will not be there for them upon retirement.

The evening concluded for some reason with the moderators using the most vile press attacks that could be found against the individual named by putting them in the form of a question. It was another example of the liberal media slinging dirt in a Republican debate instead of allowing the free flow of argument as they so often do in Democrat debates. I have to award first place to Mitt Romney. He dominated every segment of the discussion, and seemed informed and in charge. I can't endorse anyone yet and may not at all, but Romney clearly won despite the targeted assault by the moderators. A victory in Florida might start him on a roll that will be hard to stop.

DISAPPOINTED AND LOST

2008-01-22T13:33:00.000-05:00

"Why should a belief in individual freedom, less centralized authority in government, and more local autonomy be called conservatism? By the same token what is liberal about wanting more government, government interference in the raising of our children, compulsory government medicine and the confiscation and forced redistribution of a sizable percentage of each citizens earnings?"

Ronald Reagan November 16, 1976

Fred Thompson's disappointing showing in Saturday's South Carolina primary and subsequent withdrawal from the race today leaves me with nowhere to go. Fred's exit ends the only chance of the Republican Party fielding a Presidential candidate who follows the Reagan political ethos. That officially ends the party of Reagan. The GOP has morphed into a spineless, philosophically challenged shell of the party once in control of both houses of Congress and the White House. See how the mighty have fallen. This is the result of years if not decades of party leaders neglecting and ignoring the proven ideas of Ronald Reagan. Dutch knew a thing or two about leading the free world and winning elections, and the party has abused his legacy to its own detriment. Conservatives such as I now have no candidate and no party.

The Republican primary voters so far have chosen candidates far outside what has traditionally been conservative thinking. The four gentlemen remaining are not assured of winning in November because they do not present unswerving dedication to the principles of the right and in opposition to the liberal Democrats. South Carolina winner Senator John McCain has shown time and time again that he will fold his political tent and cooperate with liberals just to claim "something" has been achieved. The two most famous pieces of legislation with McCain's name on them also have the names Feingold and Kennedy on them. More outrageous and unforgivable was the infamous "Gang of Fourteen" debacle in the Senate when a group of so called moderates in both parties cut a deal to avoid a substantive fight over judges. As a conservative, I am not sending Republicans to Washington to cut deals with the Democrats, I'm sending Republicans to D.C. to outvote the liberals. Senator McCain's service and dedication to our nation in unquestionable, but he is far too willing to smoke the peace pipe instead of opposing the Democrats when necessary. Rudy's a likable enough guy, he's good on the war, but his social positions are intolerable. Mitt Romney only became conservative to run for President. That and his striking resemblance to Count Chocula scare me. I find Mike Huckabee detestable. His blatant use of religion to fuel his campaign is morally repugnant, and he should be ashamed. Evangelicals in the early primary states were bedazzled enough to ignore his liberal spending, immigration, and big government record. I will not be able to vote for any of these people in good conscience, and that leaves quite a dilemma.

How does one vote when none of the candidates of their own party are suitable? One answer is to cast a vote for the other party, a sort of rebellious protest and something I've never done. Voting for a third party candidate is surely a wasted effort since they have absolutely zero chance of winning or even placing. Or perhaps disenchanted conservatives should just sit the election out and allow the chips to fall where they may. I believe the Democrats will win in November against any of the current crop of Republican hopefuls, with or without my help. It's an interesting question, and one that can be pondered for another seven months plus. None of the GOP survivors is likely to get my support whatever they say, and my differences with the Democrats on policy are large and many.

The current situation is that I have no political party. I will for for voting purposes remain a Republican so that I can support conservative candidates, if any should emerge at a later date. In addition, I in no way feel obliged to automatically support Republican candidates for other offices further down the ballot. The Republicans here in my state of Ohio are a strikingly pathetic and ineffective bunch, mirroring the national party. Now my support will have to be earned. I have a long time to decide a proper course of action for next November, but the party should know they have disappointed and driven away a reliable lifetime supporter. Saturday was a major setback for the GOP, but it may take a spanking from the Democrats in November before it is realized. It seems Barack Obama is more aware of the Reagan legacy than any of the Republican candidates. Ronald Reagan made me a Republican, and now the party is abandoning his policies. If that isn't a betrayal, it sure feels like one.

STANDING ON THE PRECIPICE

2008-01-18T21:49:00.000-05:00

South Carolina holds their Republican Presidential primary tomorrow, and it marks a potential turning point for the party and the nation. Tomorrow starts a several week stretch that may determine the Republican nominee. Huckabee won Iowa with strong evangelical support, McCain carried the always independent New Hampshire, and Mitt Romney has won the Wyoming caucus and took his birthplace of Michigan with a strong economic message in a state hurting more than most. No clear national leader has emerged for the GOP, and it's possible the nominee might be selected on the floor of the convention. Tomorrow is the start of a process that will decide whether traditional conservatism will flourish or be unrecognizably altered.

The South Carolina campaign has been heated. Telephone calls to voters indicating McCain is a traitor or that some other candidate is secretly evil are just despicable. These sort of tactics originate from outside, so called "527" groups that are fronts for candidates willing to do the dirty work or lunatics. It is slightly ironic that a phenomenon created by the horrendously unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is coming back to bite one of the creators, but that in no way excuses this type of slander against any candidate. Mitt Romney has pulled out of South Carolina and headed to friendlier Nevada, and he's likely to win there with heavy Mormon support. Rudy Guliani has fallen off the map, dismissed the early primaries, and appears to base all his hopes on taking Florida out of nowhere later. McCain can expect firm support from older military veterans, but struggles to gain the trust of conservatives he has repeatedly affronted. Huckabee continues his apparent plan to win the White House on the support of evangelicals alone, and to the detriment of the process he has successfully mesmerized some into supporting his Christian socialism. Fred Thompson, in my view the only solid and consistent conservative, has struggled to gain widespread support despite his clear vision of the principles and future of the party. All the other candidates have a flaw that make their run a hobbled effort, a dark and foreboding cloud for November. Fred represents a return to the Ronald Reagan brand of conservatism the party has neglected and is threatening to abandon. The common sense traditional values evident time and again in Thompson's policy statements and speaking opportunities represent the core beliefs of a conservative Republican Party. Fred has said he has to "do well," but it's clear what's needed is a big win to justify his further participation. A win in South Carolina tomorrow would vault him into the news and increase fundraising. If another candidate wins, it marks the beginning of some very dark possibilities.

A poor finish by the only real conservative in the race will be a very strong indicator. It will mark the point at which the GOP stopped being a conservative party. We're also choosing the head of the party, and that leader will obviously determine party philosophy to a large extent. We risk the loss of any semblance of conservatism within the party. At that point there will be little philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats, leaving dedicated conservatives including myself with nowhere to go.

I'll remain optimistic until tomorrow evening. I have to hope the electorate in South Carolina will reject a moderate version of the party and select a candidate worthy of our full philosophical support. The party shouldn't cut moral deals in supporting a candidate that is not solidly conservative for perceived general election gain. The truth is that the party will not win in November without a candidate of unquestioned political beliefs and the ability to communicate them. The only man to fit the bill is Fred Thompson.

SURRENDER MONKEYS GATHER IN VEGAS

2008-01-15T23:08:00.000-05:00

The three little defeatists congregated for a debate Tuesday night in Las Vegas. NBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams moderated and Natalie Morales read a few email questions for the MSNBC broadcast. Only Clinton, Obama, and Edwards participated, Dennis Kucinich having lost a lawsuit to force his participation. Each round of questioning provided examples of why these candidates are wrong on the issues and wrong for America.

The issue of race came up first, having been the hottest point of contention between Clinton and Obama and their surrogates over the past week. Billary claimed that all three of the candidates were here partially as a result of the civil rights movements of the sixties. Perhaps an argument can be made for the Obama and Clinton on that point, but Edwards? I'm pretty sure the movement wasn't intended to help wealthy white personal injury attorneys. In any event, it's delightful to see the Dems wasting time arguing about Dr. King and President Lyndon Johnson instead of addressing substantive issues like war and the economy. Everyone agreed they should all come together and hug and move on to other things. Even after that, Russert picked the scab for another round asking about candidate accountability for the statements of campaign spokesmen and Obama's admitted past drug use. Obama was asked about the difference between the poll numbers and actual results in New Hampshire, but no one could admit that white liberals lied about voting for a black candidate. The idea of closet racism among their own kind is too much for the liberal media to handle. Good stuff, but it went nowhere. The key is that the Dems pander constantly to minority groups to get elected, but then once in office fail to take promised action and rarely appoint minorities to high positions.

The discussion then turned to the President's role as chief executive. Obama laid out his vision of the President as some sort of national mood doctor. Hillary went after alleged Bush failures, oblivious to the fact the Bush isn't running again. None of the three can claim any executive experience at all, despite Hillary's assertions that being the wife of an executive counts. Under that logic, the wife of a plumber is qualified to fix a major leak.

The bulk of the evening focused on the economy and the Democrat socialist vision of how to deal with it. Whatever the economic scenario, the liberal answer is a big, expensive government program and the bureaucracy that goes with it. That applies to just about every other subject from health care to guns, but it's especially evident when they discuss the economy. In the Democrat reality, the federal government intrudes heavily into and controls the engines of economic growth. Instead of leaving business free to operate within reasonable safety restraints on its own, the Dems instead see a government reflex natural to each and every movement of the economic indicators. The evil nature of corporations and the unadulterated greed of capitalism become the bogeymen they use to justify an overreaching federal government. Voters are supposed to forget that big federal programs eventually become ineffective because of mismanagement and misspending.

The candidates had a chance to question each other, and all three blew the opportunity. Edwards asked Obama about the money behind his campaign. Hillary asked Obama to cosponsor an unconstitutional bill with her to limit the President's authority in reaching a deal with the Iraqi government on an extended American presence. Obama questioned Edwards about who could be faster to surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq. The junior Senator from Illinois claimed the recent bombing of a hotel in Khabul indicated wider problems, completely misrepresenting the situation and proving he hasn't reviewed the casualty figures for the terrorists in Afghanistan lately. All the Democraps constantly and irritatingly refer to the American presence in Iraq as an "occupation", and I vehemently condemn the use of that term in reference to United States forces. American forces do not occupy, they liberate. The Dems also whine about the money being spent, something that is also highly offensive. Money should not be an issue when it comes to war: if the battle is already engaged, our men and women in uniform deserve more than to have liberals at home complaining about finances.

One small, measured kudos goes to John Edwards for supporting additional benefits including job placement for military veterans. Unfortunately it's part of his big government answer to all dilemmas. All the candidates vowed to enforce requirements on universities accepting federal funding to allow military recruiters and offer ROTC, a dubious promise at best. Democrats act like they suddenly need hemorrhoid surgery whenever forced to offer support for the military. They say what they must to get elected, but one senses they don't really mean it. It rings hollow from the party of surrender to terrorism.

After tussling on Yucca Mountain and nuclear power, the three stooges progressed to illegal immigration. It at once became clear that the Dems are united in their support for a blanket amnesty. They mask it with phrases like "comprehensive reform" and "earned citizenship". That translates to "amnesty for those already here". Obama pointed out his work with Ted Kennedy and John McCain on the failed amnesty bill, not exactly a ringing endorsement on either side.

A question about the rates of black male dropouts triggered yet another big government response from Obama. Billions of dollars and "programs" are desperately needed. Hillary once again raised her "35 years of experience" argument, and it's just pathetic. The woman did nothing before becoming Senator. Being the spouse does not qualify one to do the spouse's job at any level. Sipping tea with the wives of other world leaders is not considered diplomatic experience. Give it up.

The Democratic view of the Second Amendment was revealed by a query about the communist group trying to undermine ownership rights "Mayors Against Illegal Guns", led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. They all agreed the assault weapons ban needs to be resurrected, showing they believe guns cause crime. Yeah, like flies cause garbage, right?

The substantive policy differences between them can be measure in microns. They all support a federal government bloated from higher taxes interfering regularly in our daily lives. They all are in a rush to surrender in Iraq despite solid and undeniable evidence of substantial progress on the ground. None of them have executive or military experience. All three have been legislators who have spent the bulk of their terms campaigning for higher offices. Tax increases, burdensome regulation of business, and withdrawal from the realities of the war are all part of their agenda. Whichever one of these three is nominated, the GOP candidate will have plenty of ammunition from their statements and policies. Let's hope the Republican nominee has the ability to use that ammo in an effective manner (see Fred Thompson).

FRED WINS BIG IN MYRTLE BEACH

2008-01-10T22:45:00.000-05:00

Six Republican Presidential candidates assembled Thursday evening for a critical debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Brit Hume, Wendell Goler, and "Campaign" Carl Cameron of Fox News conducted what was the most relevant and interesting debate of the entire campaign so far. The candidates actually discussed important issues at length and engaged each other almost at will. The Republican primary is a jump ball. Huckabee won thanks to the disproportionate evangelical base in Iowa, McCain took New Hampshire as expected, and now Fred Thompson is hungry for a win in a southern state. Fred needed a big victory in the debate, and he got it with room to spare. The former Tennessee Senator and Law & Order was the star of the show and showed once again why he is the clear choice for Republican Presidential nominee.

The most effective way to understand what happened Thursday night is to proceed as close to chronologically as possible. The first questions were about the economy and the potential of a recession. Mitt Romney touted a "comprehensive" plan, whatever that means. Senator John McCain gave his tired old promise to make the authors of pork famous and mentioned increased job training. Mike Huckabee took the opportunity to sermonize about our enslavement to oil. Rudy Guliani peddled his proposal for tax cuts largely copied from Thompson. Fred then gave the correct conservative answer by supporting making the Bush tax cuts permanent, providing tax relief for small business, and consider more immediate federal action only if necessary. Round one goes to Fred.

Then the moderators caught my attention by asking a series of questions about the Reagan legacy for the Republican Party, and that began the Thompson tidal wave. Huckabee declared the Reagan heritage and coalition dead and wildly exaggerated the role of evangelicals in the conservative movement. Senator McCain spoke about controlling federal spending and then crazily confessed to his belief in global warming (what?). Fred then spoke up and proceeded to jam Huckabee into a verbal wood chipper, and it was magnificent. Thompson said the future of the party is at stake in this election, and he's right. Fred excoriated the former Arkansas governor for pronouncing traditional conservatism deceased, for being part of the "blame America first" crowd after his "bunker mentality" critique of the Bush foreign policy, and for proposing the closure of GITMO and transfer of Al Qaeda detainees to American soil. Thompson summed it all up by finally and correctly identifying Huckabee as more in the Democrat Party model than the Reagan model. It had to be said amongst the right, and Fred delivered the message like a sharp punch in the nose. Rudy could only cling to Reagan's "peace through strength" policies after that, but it was clear that Thompson had stolen the issue and the moment. It just wasn't wise for any of the squishier candidates to challenge him with Huckabee's guts on the stage. Round two goes to Fred.

Discussion then moved to the recent provocative actions taken by the Iranians with speedboats in the Persian Gulf. Huckabee again flashed back to his ministerial history and referred to the enemy seeing "the gates of hell". Thompson then suggested perhaps the Iranians might be introduced to all those virgins they predict. Fred was the only candidate to comprehensively cover the entire issue, saying the recent incident is a test of our resolve. Rudy spoke about sanctions and Iran's domestic politics (yawn). McCain gave a history lesson on freedom of the seas, and Romney correctly labeled the Iranian actions as calculated. All the candidates agreed decisions about engaging the Iranians has to be left to the military commanders on the scene. Round three goes to Fred.

Another foreign policy round ensued. McCain was thrown a softball on Iraq he answered by falsely and outrageously claiming he was the only man on the planet besides Bush to support the surge. Rudy fantasized about the Palestinian Authority recognizing the right of Israel to exist and renouncing terrorism and vowed to pressure Musharraf to get Bin Laden. Pakistan was the next matter up, and Fred took his turn to properly point out that the overriding issue is the security of Paki nukes, and that our support for Musharraf is critical considering what the alternative might be. Huckabee whined about the accountability of foreign aid supplied to Pakistan, for which he was hit by Fred for worrying about dollars instead of supporting the Paki military controlling the nuclear weapons. Romney got in a good line about foreign policy in the last century being like checkers compared to today's issues that are more like three dimensional chess, but Round four went to Thompson for recognizing the important core of the matter.

A change versus experience discussion was next, giving each candidate an opportunity to tout their own record. Romney gave his tired and cliched broken Washington spiel and pointed out his background of problem solving. McCain listed his military credentials, which are indeed impressive, but then he actually had the audacity to bring up his unconstitutional campaign finance law aided by his defeatist buddy Russ Feingold. Huckabee said he has signed a pledge not to raise taxes and then exposed his socialist vision of federal involvement in health care, roads, and education. Fred emphasized his consistently conservative and pro-life record in the Senate and his ability to effectively communicate conservative principles. He then pointed out Huckabee had said earlier this year on Meet The Press that he would not sign a pledge against raising taxes, a charge Huckabee could not and did not refute. Rudy was asked about how his experience as mayor of New York relates to foreign policy, and he could only respond by citing his dealings with the United Nations. Huckabee responded to a question about his involvement with a Southern Baptist document stating women should be subservient to their husbands, proving him with yet another opportunity to go into preacher mode. Fred wins again.

Immigration was the last issue, and Thompson used it to put an exclamation point on the evening by demonstrating his knowledge and unwavering principles. McCain started the last turn by defending himself on his disastrous illegal immigration amnesty bill that failed miserably last year after great public outcry by saying he's from Arizona. Romney pursued his usual tack of going after McCain for supporting amnesty. Rudy defended his poor record on illegal immigration by saying he reduced crime in New York. Fred's policies included securing the border, punishing sanctuary cities by cutting their federal aid, helping employers identify legal workers, and enforcement by attrition. Thompson also slammed Huckabee for providing tuition breaks for illegals while governor of Arkansas, and Huckabee's response was a lame light versus dark homily. Fred takes the game, set, and match.

Hopefully last night's clear debate victory will translate into greater donations and movement in the polls, the only way to increase media coverage and discussion. Fred has so far gotten a raw deal from the media, liberal and conservative. Maybe now real conservatives in South Carolina will be able to correctly identify Thompson as most representative of their values and most able to win in November. The Democrats will play fast and loose with the facts as usual, and Fred has the knowledge and ability to correct them and win the White House. The future of the Thompson campaign looks much brighter after the debate, and a win like the one tonight couldn't have come at a better time.

IRANIANS CLOSE ENOUGH TO ENGAGE

2008-01-09T22:11:00.000-05:00

Five Iranian speedboats swarmed U.S. Navy ships in the Straits of Hormuz over the weekend. As the video above clearly shows, these boats were well within firing range and could potentially have been suicide, U.S.S. Cole style bombs. This is a serious incident in one of the most vital sea corridors in the world. Much of the world's oil passes through that area of the Persian Gulf, and obviously our navy's presence there is vital to our troops on the ground on Iraq for both supply and combat air elements. It calls into question procedures for dealing with small, fast boats in close proximity to much slower warships that provide large targets. In addition, it is not wise to allow the Iranians to conduct operations of this nature anywhere near the United States Navy. The time has come to take aggressive action against Iran.

The first step has to be clarifying and announcing our exact rules of engagement to the mullahs in Tehran and the rest of the world. With a clear set of standards in place, there is far less chance of an accident or attack that might lead to American casualties. The rule should be short and sweet: non-allied naval vessels that approach to within 500 yards of a U.S. Navy vessel will be warned only once, and if they do not immediately alter course, they will be engaged without the courtesy of a warning shot. We cannot afford the loss of a major warship to what basically amounts to a cigar boat packed with explosives. Our vessels were operating lawfully in international waters and definitely have the right to defend themselves. The video also shows how fast the Iranian boats are in relation to the large American ships. Permitting these small, fast boats to approach as close as they did is not a solid defensive posture. Let's hope the rules are made plain to all involved before American sailors are killed or wounded. Remember, we're talking about the Iranians, who are already responsible for the death of U.S. troops in Iraq.

One more little incident should provoke the destruction of the Iranian navy and all it's facilities. The overwhelming power of the U.S. Navy should be brought down with full air and naval force. If the Iranians cannot conduct themselves lawfully and peacefully in international waters, they should forfeit the right to deploy a naval force at all. No doubt those plans already exist, and American naval commanders should be prepared to begin that operation immediately if not sooner. Puny little powers like Iran cannot even be given the opportunity to challenge our forces in any way. Tolerating their shenanigans only encourages further dangerous interplay and risks the lives of our young men and women. Repeated occurrences also diminish the future effectiveness of threatening naval action.

This incident coincided with President Bush's trip to Israel, so it was contrived and planned. Why the President is seeking to establish a terrorist state along side Israel is another matter. The facts are that the leader of Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel while relentlessly pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Iran has long provided various forms of support to Hamas and Hezbollah and has supplied terrorists in Iraq with EFPs to punch through American armored vehicles, resulting in U.S. casualties and deaths. That is tantamount to material support for Al Qaeda and should carry all the ramifications that entails. We have allowed Iran to take all these provocative actions without a meaningful response and are thus inciting further dirty deeds. It's time to lay down the law to Tehran about endangering our military forces. President Bush, in Israel on Tuesday, promised "serious consequences" and said "all options are on the table" to protect American ships. That having been said, Bush may have to back that up with action sooner rather than later to curtail the Iranians. Or maybe we should just wait on Old Europe to talk the mullahs into playing nice.

"Close enough," was my first reaction. Close enough to get blasted. The United States Navy should not pussyfoot around with these terrorists. The next time such a scene takes place, the Iranians should lose some boats and sailors. It looks like they are seeking a demonstration of American power, so let's oblige them.

THE DEATH OF THE GOP

2008-01-08T20:44:00.000-05:00

As returns from the New Hampshire primary are reported, it is becoming clear that the Republican Party I grew up voting for is in it's death throes. The abundance of Presidential candidates who are not even close to conservative and their apparent success will be the end of the party serving as a representative of the right. In a desire to compromise basic principles, the party is losing me, and I would imagine other conservatives as well. When one deeply analyzes the transformation of the party over the past several decades, it is clear that the party has become more and more moderate and unwilling to stand up and fight for the beliefs it espouses.

Ronald Reagan was the man who made me a Republican. His ability to clearly explain conservative principles drew me in as a young man. His congenial manner and sense of humor defied the conventional perception of conservatives. As I've gotten older (now 41), I have been continually disappointed in the party's performance in relation to the ideas of Reagan. Each Republican President since Reagan has fallen short in moving the conservative agenda forward in a meaningful way. The party has constantly kowtowed whenever the left opposes them. This didn't start yesterday, and it surely won't be corrected anytime soon, if tonight's New Hampshire primary is any indication.

George H.W. Bush is a good man, but he is not a conservative. Like Mitt Romney, he changed his position on abortion to run. He increased taxes despite a vow not to do so and was not reelected largely because he abandoned the conservative principles he claimed to represent when first elected. Sound familiar? It should, because George W. Bush has headed the same direction. Bush 43 has massively increased the size and scope of the federal government using the war or "compassion" as an excuse. His tax cuts are commendable, but it pretty much ends there. And what did either of these gentlemen do to further the conservative agenda? The answer is not much.

Roe v. Wade still stands as the law of the land, for one example, despite having been wrongly decided and based on now archaic medical information. No one in the party has made any serious attempt to the end the massacre of 35 - 40 million innocent Americans killed in the womb since 1973. How many Einsteins, how many Salks, how many great athletes or skilled artisans have been killed? The toll on America is inestimable, yet the party whose platform includes an anti-Roe plank has made very little progress even at the edges. You often hear the spiel about America not being ready for that sort of change. Perhaps those aborted are ready. Unfortunately the Republican Party has given in to liberal whiners and criers. See, you can't hear a fetus cry, so their cause is pushed aside for political expediency. The party seeks not to offend those who use abortion as a form of regular birth control.

The federal government grows ever larger. It's grubby little fingers now reach into nearly every corner of our existence. Individual programs are touted as necessary or compassionate and pushed through without regard for their deleterious impact once implemented. Whether it's Homeland Security or a massive prescription drug program for seniors, the inexorable trend continues, often with GOP sponsorship or assistance. Very few in the party even attempt to address this issue. The liberals have successfully connected states rights to southern resistance to the civil rights movement, and now even use of the term will raise eyebrows. How sad for a party supposedly committed to restricting the growth of the federal government. It rings hollow.

The Second Amendment is under continual assault. Various states and localities pass ordinances far outside their authority in a misguided belief that restricting gun ownership will mean less crime. Even the feds have attempted to restrict ownership based on the shape or magazine capacity of certain weapon types. The few Republicans who claim to support gun rights will immediately start adding caveats if questioned. The Constitution could not be more clear on this issue, and the last time I checked, it didn't mention any caveats. Here in Ohio the government has seen fit to "permit" concealed carry of guns, but only with the permission of the local sheriff and only after a "safety course". I have news for the sheriff: I do not need your permission to exercise my constitutional right to self-defense, nor do I need the permission of the governor. The right to bear arms is an individual right, and hopefully soon SCOTUS will affirm that in the D.C. case. The Second Amendment does not mention "reasonable restrictions", the phrase always thrown out by gun-fearing liberals. The party has largely abandoned the fight on this matter, much to the detriment of responsible citizens.

Now comes the current crop of Republican Presidential hopefuls. Those leading the polls are not likely to change the direction of the party in a positive direction. Witness John McCain, who has defied conservatives and made nice with the worst of the Dems whenever possible. Witness Mike Huckabee, a social conservative who is a liberal on everything else, including taxes and spending. Witness Rudy Guliani, who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control, yet seemed the likely nominee until very recently. Witness Mitt Romney, who morphed into a conservative for his Presidential campaign after serving in Massachussets as a moderate to liberal governor. None of these men are consistent conservatives and none are worthy of the conservative vote. Fred Thompson is worthy, but the press is not helping and the party seems oblivious to it's headlong plunge into irrelevance.

I will only vote for true conservatives. If the GOP nominates a moderate, I'm through. I will not vote for a candidate who is little different from the Dems. If my party does not nominate a conservative, it cannot legitimately claim to be a conservative party. I will not waste my time holding my nose to vote for someone who does not share my values. Been there, done that. The Republican electorate better consider the effect of a moderate nominee, or it faces losing many conservatives like me. And I will not be talked into voting Republican just to oppose the Democrat nominee. I see little difference between the Dems and a moderate Republican. I cannot and will not support any nominee who has shown any wavering of principles, or even worse, supports flat out liberal policies. If the GOP follows the path it is currently on, it will lose to the Dems in November and fade into oblivion. It's a far cry from the permanent Republican majority dreamed of several years ago, and it's because the party and it's nominees refuse to fight for their basic principles. Sad, very sad.

GOP N.H. FORUM SHARPENS DIFFERENCES

2008-01-06T21:48:00.000-05:00

GOP Presidential candidates gathered for a Fox News forum Sunday evening in Manchester, New Hampshire, ahead of Tuesday's primary. The same gentlemen also debated Saturday evening, but that was up against the NFL playoffs, and no one, including me, was watching. Sunday's format, which had the candidates seated literally shoulder to shoulder, was probably the best of the campaign so far. The candidates discussed a wide range of topics including the war, taxes and spending, immigration, social security, and negative campaign ads. Participants had ample time to answer questions and respond to barbs when necessary. For analytical conservatives, the forum once again clearly showed Fred Thompson to be the only candidate running worthy of support. Romney, McCain, Rudy, and Huckabee all demonstrated philosophical flaws that simply eliminate them from contention. The GOP nominating race is wide open, and any of these five men could get the nod. This campaign may not produce a nominee until the convention, perhaps even resulting in a dramatic floor fight. If Republican voters wish to continue as the conservative party and win in November, Fred must be their choice. To make my point, a review of each candidate overall may prove more instructive than detailing issue to issue.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani is attempting to execute a primary strategy that has never worked for anyone. His showing in Iowa was statistically insignificant, and results in New Hampshire are not likely to be any better. He's hoping he can hang on by the fingernails until Florida and the bluer states more likely to support his liberal social policies. The problem is that he may be an afterthought by then. Rudy's one redeeming policy position on the war cannot diminish the fact that he is not a true conservative overall. The main rationale for his candidacy is his performance as NYC Mayor, a scandalous and debatable record at best. His record on illegal immigration is highly suspect, and his recent problems explaining the security provided to his then girlfriend on the public dime are only the tips of icebergs the Dems would pounce on immediately with great relish. Rudy's answers Sunday night all centered on reminding voters of his prior service as mayor, and that may not be the best way to go. Extrapolating that service into claiming qualification for the Oval Office doesn't cut it, especially for a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control candidate who claims to be a conservative.

Former Massachussets Governor Mitt Romney reminds me of Count Chocula, and I may not ever be able to get past that. More disturbing is his conversion to conservatism of several major issues including abortion. One wonders if what he is saying now might not change in the future. Romney has the ability to self-finance his campaign, and he has outspent the other candidates by a wide margin. It didn't work in Iowa, and it looks like he may finish second to McCain on Tuesday. He is attacking Senator McCain mostly on immigration, an issue on which Romney is not exactly squeaky clean. His record as governor is just as suspect as Rudy's as mayor, and he has not demonstrated the long term commitment to basic conservative principles GOP voters should be seeking.

Huckleberry Hound Mike Huckabee is looking more and more like a one trick pony with each passing day. The former Arkansas governor does not have a deep evangelical base in New Hampshire like he enjoyed in Iowa. Frankly, his manner is starting to become annoying. Everything is a joke or a cute little saying lifted from one of the past sermons he delivered as a Baptist minister. Huckabee's populist rhetoric and calls of compassion for lawbreakers of various types seem more at home in the Democrat Party. He has made numerous factual errors in statements over the past month, revealing a lack of understanding of important issues. Fred Thompson took him to task Sunday evening for supporting the closure of GITMO and the movement of detainees to Leavenworth. Huckabee's retort showed a poor understanding of the legalities involved in such a move, including habeus corpus. He's a nice man, but we're not seeking a pastor.

Arizona Senator John McCain is leading the polls in New Hampshire, a state he won over George W. Bush in 2000. He obviously has the credentials and experience to be CINC and no one can challenge his honorable service in Vietnam as a prisoner of war held for five long years. McCain has, however, taken every opportunity that has come down the pike to compromise the conservative principles he espouses in the name of progress (judges, anyone?). From the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill to the disastrous "comprehensive" immigration amnesty bill he authored last summer, there is a repeated pattern of cutting deals with liberals. And anyone who would put their name on a bill with Russ Feingold isn't a principled conservative. McCain claims he can get Osama and is most ready to be President, but I don't want yet another conservative who will make deals with Democrats.

Fred Thompson once again demonstrated a broad and deep knowledge of the issues and an outstanding ability to communicate conservative principles in easily understandable terms. Fred detailed his plan to reform social security, something no other candidate has offered. His plan to expand the military is exactly what is needed, and is also something no other candidate has detailed. Thompson has the clearest and strongest illegal immigration and border enforcement policies of any candidate on either side. Despite unfair coverage from Politico.com and Fox News, Fred has shown time and again why he's the best choice. Sunday night was another experiment proving Fred is the best candidate running.

In an apparent effort to immediately prove their bias, Fox went to a Frank Luntz focus group that allegedly came in undecided and came out committed to Romney. One has to wonder what they watched while the debate was in progress. It certainly seemed like a crowd stacked with people already committed to Romney.

The closing statements by the candidates boil it all down quite well. Huckabee gave his nice guy sermon, Romney claimed he's a problem solver, Rudy reminded us he was New York Mayor, and McCain said he's ready. Fred summed it up by pointing out that the next President will need the credibility to go to the American people and tell them the truth: that we have major difficulties that will not be solved overnight. GOP voters would be wise to consider those closing statements before casting a ballot. New Hampshire may not provide Fred with much support, but the race will soon swing south to much more fertile ground for a candidate with consistent conservative principles.

ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT BREAKDOWN

2007-12-30T23:31:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-27T22:07:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-25T18:38:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-16T22:40:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-15T00:27:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-12T23:14:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-04T19:51:00.000-05:00

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