Merry Christmas

Here is something about Christmas you may not know:

Christmas is celebrated on December 25^th; however the actual birthday of Jesus is a mystery. It seems no early historian thought to write down the date of what is easily the most important event in history save for Christ’s Resurrection. While many scholars doubt the December date, it was not arrived at out of the clear blue sky nor was it simply an attempt, as was All Hollows day on Nov. 1, to offset a Pagan Holiday. In fact none of the early theologians or historians references the winter solstice instead it seems that the concept originates from the belief that the conception of Christ like his death was associated with the Passover. A second evidence for a winter date is in the story of John the Baptist whose birth preceded by 6 months that of our Lord. The angel appeared to Zachariah in the temple and said that he and his aged wife, Elisabeth, would bear a son and name him John. It was then in Elisabeth’s sixth month that the angel appeared to Mary. If Zachariah was burning incense at the feast of atonement which is likely, and if his wife conceived shortly after then six months plus another nine would be a very possible late December early January date. A lot of if’s but than again we are speculating, but while there is no direct evidence that Jesus was conceived at the time of Passover but it is impossible to divorce the Jewish laws and traditions from the life of Christ after all those laws were intended to foreshadow the coming of Messiah.

Christmas is my favorite time of year, but what makes it special to me is that I know the Savior born so long ago. He did not enter the world merely to encourage peace and Good will; He came to be the redeeming sacrifice for the sin of the world. So when was He born, no one knows. It makes me happy to think it might be December, but in the end the important thing is that he was born and He died in the place of sinful man and He arose in glorious victory over the grave.  He is coming back too, not as a baby not as a bearded guy in sandles walking the beach with a dozen guys, He is returning as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, to judge the sin and misdeeds of men and only those who have received the forgiveness of His precious blood will stand.

That’s what Christmas means to me.

Finally most of us agree the nation is on the wrong path, so once again I look to the words of one of America’s greatest men to remind us what the right path is, this time Ronald Reagan:

  

When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the Word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible"...

I'm accused of being simplistic at times with some of the problems that confront us. But I've often wondered: Within the covers of that single Book are all the answers to all the problems that face us today, if we'd only look there. "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever." It's my firm belief that the enduring values...presented in its pages have a great meaning for each of us and for our nation...

Now, I realize it's fashionable in some circles to believe that no one in government should... encourage others to read the Bible... that will violate the separation of church and state...Well...the father of our country, George Washington, kissed the Bible at his inauguration...

John Adams called it "the best book in the world." and Ben Franklin said, "... the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men... without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel... our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach, a bye-word down to future ages."...

This year, for the first time in history, the Voice of America broadcast a religious service worldwide - Christmas Eve at the National Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C.

Now, these broadcasts are not popular with governments of totalitarian power. But make no mistake, we have a duty to broadcast. Aleksandr Herzen, the Russian writer, warned, "To shrink from saying a word in defense of the oppressed is as bad as any crime." Well, I pledge to you that America will stand up, speak out, and defend the values we share. To those who would crush religious freedom, our message is plain: You may jail your believers. You may close their churches, confiscate their Bibles, and harass their rabbis and priests... But you will never destroy the love of God and freedom that burns in their hearts. They will triumph over you...

Think of it: the most awesome military machine in history, but it is no match for that one single man, hero, strong yet tender, Prince of Peace. His name alone, Jesus, can lift our hearts, soothe our sorrows, heal our wounds, and drive away our fears... With His message and with your conviction and commitment, we can still move mountains. We can work to reach our dreams and to make America a shining city on a hill (Ronald Reagan Presidential Library).

Until next time keep Christ in Christmas!

Give me your huddled masses yearning to work below minimum wage

Perhaps no current issue so starkly contrasts the Republican establishment from the Republican voter as does immigration. Before we look into our candidates and views I would like to clarify two terms and dispel a couple of myths.

The first term is “Republican establishment”. I don’t think there is some grand conspiracy, some group of kingmakers meeting in some smoke filled room, deciding the fate of nations, greeting each other with secret handshakes wearing their freemason’s rings. I am merely referring to those in power who have been there for a while and like it. They oppose anyone who would rock the boat too much; they are comfortable with big government if it doesn’t get too big, too fast. They are more threatened by true conservatives who would drastically reduce the size of government and thus the scope of their own influence. They are if you recall the ones who stood in the way of the Reagan plans to eliminate the Department of education and other fundamental reductions in the scope of government.  In short the establishment is like the tea party in one way they are united in common purpose not bureaucratic organization. As long as the establishment holds sway the sacred cows of government won’t be touched, one of the biggest is immigration.  

The second term I wish to address is anti-immigration. I do not know of one elected conservative or Presidential hopeful who is anti-immigration. In fact I do not know a tea party member who is anti-immigration. We do however believe that people should come here in keeping with our laws and customs. If someone breaks into your house, it doesn’t matter rather they are a good house guest or not does it? If we are to be a nation governed by the rule of law then we simply can’t afford to overlook the millions of criminal acts by those who cross our border illegally. So we will not use the word anti-immigration.

Then there is the first myth. The myth is that the conduct of legal and illegal immigrants is the same. Absolutely not! You see the disaster that is the Mexican border and the towns and ranches near it and this is obvious.  Many who cross the border illegally are looking for work all right or else they have a job with the gangs and drug cartels. Violence has spilled north and the American cities along the border have soaked up the bloodshed. In addition to the drug violence and drugs kidnapping is on the rise. In fact Phoenix Az is second only to (you guessed it) Mexico City in the number of kidnappings. Many of these are ransom related, what self respecting drug cartel won’t supplement its income with a little side business of kidnapping? More sinister is the taking of young girls to be “kept” by drug lords. To the people along the US Mexico border these are not vague political arguments, or theoretical debates these are the realities of life and this quest for survival is the root of the immigration law in Arizona or the policies of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and it is against this very struggle for survival that the Justice Department of Eric Holder has chosen to fight.

The second myth is that the illegal is vital to the economy. I grant you that we need some labor form the immigrant sources. During the Bush years when unemployment was as low as 4% it would simply not have been possible to man all of our jobs without immigrants, but there is not one single job any where in this great land of ours that an illegal can do that a legal immigrant can’t. The only difference is that you have to pay payroll taxes on legal, an illegal, usually not. When you don’t pay taxes what constitutes a living wage shrinks considerably. Therefore illegals who are heavy users of our social safety net, contribute little towards it.  Yes some do, but why pay full wages taxes and benefits to someone who you hire illegally? It kind of defeats the purpose of hiring cheap illegal labor in the first place.

Now for a pet peeve of mine, the quality of work you get from illegals sucks. It is not that people from foreign countries do not have the ability to learn but if you are an employer willing to break the law to save money do you really believe that employer is going to spend the money to properly train those employees? I am a union member, and in spite of disagreeing with much of our political leaders, we do one thing well and that is train people, we have immigrants who work for us and are among the best out there, welders from Trinidad among the rest. Skilled workers legally hired and properly trained, I can show you the difference between skilled work and illegal crap on most jobs and with dozens of anecdotes.

The next myth is that the open borders crowd is compassionate. There is nothing compassionate, or American for that matter about creating a permanent underclass of workers, that will always be a cheop labor source. Not to mention how many die on the border each year.

The final myth is that illegals assimilate. Again there are exceptions but with all respect to Newt the immigrant family that lives here for twenty years and are a part of their community probably did not start illegally. Illegals as a rule seek to use the US not participate in it.

Next time we will have a Christmas Message of sme kind, then we will finish looking at our candidates on this subject then a look at energy policies, than we will be well into the caucus and primary season.

Until next time keep on the firing line.   

With Great Power…

“With Great Power comes great responsibility” is a well known phrase, which originated in the Spiderman comics. It also is apropos to the relationship of the USA to the rest of the world. When looking at the candidates for President it is important to remember that they will be the face and voice of the nation to the rest of the world for at least four years. In him or her we place the care taking of our national honor. Last time we saw how poorly the current administration has treated that honor now lets see who is best suited to restore it.

Michelle Bachman- often a presidential candidate must overcome the label of inexperienced as it relates to foreign policy.  Remember that is why we have Joe Biden as Vice President he had experience in foreign policy, he was wrong on nearly every major issue but hey he has experience. One of Rep. Bachman’ strengths is that she has experience and has been right on most major issues.

However, shipping companies don’t work for a dollar an hour either, I think most companies would rather make goods

Rep. Bachman’s emphasis on reducing the trade imbalances we currently are subject to is to lessen the strangleholds of taxation and regulation that push our businesses over seas. Lets be honest, most business does not want to go overseas, but Americans will not and cannot work for 2.50 an hour, this is not selfishness it is reality. However shipping companies do not work for free either. Most companies would prefer to make there goods here and it should be entirely possible to make a tax and regulatory structure that offsets those higher labor costs. A 9% business tax rate would have done the trick but alas Mr. Cain didn’t have the stomach for the fight, but Bachman’s proposals are good especially the elimination of capital gains, which would do much to keep businesses at home. As far as free trade treaties and agreements Rep. Bachman has been in support, of them in principle from the Foundry in 2008: Each day in Minnesota and all across the nation, billions of dollars worth of products begin their journey to be sold overseas. American farmers, manufacturers, and businesses rely on exports to strengthen and grow both their bottom line, as well as our economy’s.

Free and fair trade agreements help spur economic growth; improve efficiency and innovation; create better, higher-paying jobs for hard-working Americans; and increase the availability of lower-priced products here in the United

States.

Furthermore, the role of free trade as an expression of liberty and opportunity for all individuals signifies the very principles our country was founded upon. Yet, the free trade agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia negotiated under the Bush Administration remain little more than words on paper. Despite having been carefully negotiated over a period of two and half years, these agreements have become bogged down by partisan divides. In the meantime, with an average tariff of 53% imposed on U.S. agricultural products by South Korea last year, for example, there is little wonder the United States International Trade Commission estimates U.S. sales of agricultural products could increase by as much as $3.8 billion once the U.S.–South Korea agreement is fully implemented.

And while Congressional leaders seem content to leave these agreements on the back burner, America’s fragile industries are left hanging in the balance. The impact of depressed exports is fully evident to those who make their livelihood from them. In fact, Minnesota’s manufacturing exports experienced a 19% decline during the first quarter of 2009, mirroring a similar decrease nationwide. And our agricultural sector, especially our ailing pork and dairy producers, certainly needs no reminder of the importance of expanded export channels to the survival of their farms.

Unfortunately, the closest we get to good news on trade these days is that the trade deficit, which reached $840 billion last year, may at least be plateau-ing. However, while the deficit seems to have steadied, at least temporarily, it is more the result of a sharper reduction in imports than of a steep rise in exports. Regardless, as one economist recently summarized, “the trade picture from the United States is cloudy right now.”

While I agree with this also in principle, I also think we need a president that will do a far better job of promoting America’s interests when negotiating treaties. Too often we give up too much and ask for too little for our own industries. I cannot find, though I have not watched all of them a debate question posed to all or any of these candidates about details of what would constitute a good agreement. Why do we have a dozen debates again?

On the touchy subjects of Iran and China "We are in debt up to our ears to China. Well over $1 trillion we owe to them. That means we're making substantial interest payments to China. When we send our hard-earned money to China, that's our tax money. And what that means is we have less money for our military. And we just saw this year because of the failure of the Super Committee, $1 trillion less will be available for national defense.

When we cut back on national defense a trillion dollars, we are, in effect, sending money over to China in the form of interest. When we send the money over to them, they're able to build their military up. So the greater our debt, the less money on our military, our military goes down. The more money for China, their military goes up. So we actually have the United States taxpayers paying for China's new naval aircraft carrier, new fighter jets, new cyberoptics. This is a very frightening proposition, and it's not good for the security of the American people."

On Iran the primary focus has been on Rep Bachman’s perceived gaffe about an American embassy in Iran, Bachman knows we don’t have an embassy there and has spoken extensively and eloquently on the subject; most importantly she sees the real threat Iran poses and supports an aggressive stance against them. I doubt Iran would thumb their noses at her the way they do Obama.

Rick Santorum: foreign-policy credentials: Santorum served for eight years on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Overview: Although best known for his conservative views on domestic social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, Santorum has emerged in this race as the unlikely defender of a neoconservative foreign policy, standing up for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, robust military spending, and democracy promotion. In debates, this has often made him a foil for the more isolationist rhetoric of Herman Cain and Jon Huntsman.

Advisors: Santorum's primary foreign-policy advisor is his former chief of staff, Mark Rogers.

On the issues:

Afghanistan/Pakistan: Santorum opposes Barack Obama's withdrawal plan for Afghanistan, saying, "We cannot leave the region when there is still a good chance the Taliban can take control. To leave leadership in the hands of a radical terrorist group, known for its horrific treatment of women and for carrying out unprovoked terrorist attacks on this country, ... is something I am unwilling to do." He has criticized his opponents for failing to emphasize the necessity of victory and trying to "to skirt this complicated issue for an applause line."

He has been relatively measured on Pakistan policy, maintaining in one debate that the United States needs to continue foreign aid to Pakistan and maintain good relations with the nuclear-armed country.

Military spending: Santorum's budget-cutting zeal does not extend to military spending. He describes Obama's defense cuts as "wrong signal, wrong effort, and wrong time." He has accused the Obama administration of "intentionally trying to degrade our military" and has defended robust U.S. military spending on the ground that it creates U.S. jobs.

Israel/Palestine: Santorum believes "it is the duty of each and every American citizen who abhors terrorism and supports freedom to stand up and say, 'I support Israel.'" He has criticized Obama for   putting "Israel's very existence in more peril" and says Palestine's statehood bid at the United Nations is a sign that the Palestinians "feel weakness -- they feel it, they see it, they know it -- and they're going to exploit it."

China: It's not quite the new axis of evil, but Santorum says that China, along with Iran and Venezuela, is part of a "gathering storm" of threats facing the United States. During Oct. 11's debate, Santorum raised eyebrows by declaring, "I don't want to go to a trade war; I want to beat China!" He also said, "I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business."

My thanks to  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/rick_santorum/profile for compiling these quotes.

Rick Perry: Foreign-policy credentials: Perry lived in Germany and Saudi Arabia in the 1970s while flying cargo planes for the U.S. Air Force in Latin America, North Africa, and Europe. "I saw all of these different types of governments and I made the connections to how the people acted and looked, and it became abundantly clear to me that, at that particular point in time, that America was this very unique place and that our form of democracy was very rare," he told the Abilene Reporter-Newsin April. As governor of Texas, he has traveled abroad and worked particularly closely with Latin America.

Advisors: The campaign recently hired Victoria Coates, a research director for former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with a Ph.D. in Italian Renaissance art and history, to advise Perry on foreign policy. The Texas governor told Sean Hannity in November that he also discusses international affairs with Liz Cheney and John Bolton -- people "who actually understand, intimately, where these countries are, why they think like they think."

Afghanistan/Pakistan: Perry wants to transfer responsibility to Afghan security forces and bring U.S. troops home, but he opposes President Barack Obama's withdrawal timetable and in September quickly walked back from an apparent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal. He thinks Pakistan isn't being "honest with us" and wants to cut off foreign aid to the country. "Their political people are not who are in charge of that country," Perry claims. "It's the military. It's the secret service."

Also from foreign policy.com.

Perry has dealt with China in seeking to bring investment dollars to Texas, there is an up and a down to this, states tend to make good deals that bring in revenue, so that experience is valuable, but a too friendly relationship with Beijing is not a good thing right now.

Mitt Romney- Foreign-policy credentials: As chairman of the organizing committee of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, Romney was credited with financially rescuing the scandal-tarnished event and restoring -- for a time -- the reputation of the International Olympic Committee. He lived abroad as a Mormon missionary in France while in college, and like Barack Obama before him, Romney has made a few campaign stops in Europe this time around.  

Overview: As one might expect from the primary front-runner and favorite for the nomination, Romney has stayed clear of controversial positions and doesn't deviate much from the Republican Party's standard talking points. He's in favor of robust defense spending, strong ties with Israel, bulking up border security, and getting tough with China.

As a former governor, Romney has virtually no official experience implementing foreign policy, but having gone through the primary process in 2008, he may be more prepared to handle tough national security questions.

Advisors: Romney has lined up a team of GOP national security heavyweights, including former CIA Director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, former Senators Jim Talent and Norm Coleman, and author Robert Kagan. Mideast advisor Walid Phares has proved a somewhat controversial pick, due to his past association with Christian militia groups during the Lebanese Civil War.

On the Issues:

Afghanistan/Pakistan: Romney shocked many party insiders with his remarks on Afghanistan during the June 14 debate. "It's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can -- as soon as our generals think it's OK," Romney said. "One lesson we've learned in Afghanistan is that Americans cannot fight another nation's war of independence."

Of course, Romney's frequent reference to the advice of generals leaves him quite a bit of wiggle room on the question of when a drawdown should begin. He has attacked the current administration's position, saying, "I don't know of a single military advisor to President Obama who recommended the withdrawal plan that he's chosen, and that puts the success of our soldiers and our mission at greater risk."

Romney would continue the policy of drone strikes on terrorist targets within Pakistan, but is less willing to attack the country than some other candidates, saying he would "work with our friends in that country to get them to do some of the things we can't do ourselves." He describes the country as "close to being a failed state."  

Military spending: Romney has called for an additional $30 billion in military spending, including increasing active-duty forces by 100,000 troops. "If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president," is a common campaign refrain.  

China- Romney seeks to carry on a polocie of engagement with China hoping to influence the Chinese to a free and open society while securing a market for US goods. I used to agree with this philosophy but I can’t argue reality, the Chinese take our money to prop up their totalitarian government, and give us nothing in return. I think the one thing Trump had right when he flirted with a run for president is that China is not a good guy, they don’t want what we want and we need to deal with them accordingly.

Again I quote http://www.foreignpolicy.com/rick_santorum/profile

Newt Gingrich-  Foreign-policy credentials: As House speaker, Gingrich weighed in on the U.S. interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti and was a key supporter of North American Free Trade Agreement and other major Clinton-era trade deals. Since leaving politics, he has researched, as an independent scholar, the roles of Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II in the closing days of the Cold War. He holds a Ph.D. in modern European history.  

Overview: Gingrich is often referred to in the media as the intellectual of the GOP field, owing to his post-speakership years as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and his numerous works of historical fiction. Gingrich is probably somewhat closer to the neoconservative, "national greatness conservative" end of the spectrum than the more isolationist strain favored by some members of the Tea Party. Gingrich takes his foreign-policy cues from the 1980s, particularly the "Reagan-John Paul II-Thatcher strategy" of aggressive, rhetorical democracy promotion.

Gingrich consistently uses Cold War rhetoric to describe current threats, for instance, comparing the influence of radical Islam within the United States to the domestic threat once posed by communism.

Advisors: Gingrich's foreign-policy team is led by Herman Pirchner, the American Foreign Policy Council, a Washington D.C. think tank. Other advisors include AFPC Vice President Ilan Berman and AFPC Senior Fellow for Asian Studies Stephen Yates, a former staffer for Vice President Dick Cheney.

Former CIA director James Woolsey, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace and former Central Command head Gen. John Abizaid are also reportedly advising the campaign.

Afghanistan/Pakistan: Gingrich has been downbeat on the U.S. effort in Afghanistan,predicting that it "is not going to end well." He believes that "we consistently underestimate how hard" it is to deal with an "Afghan culture that is fundamentally different" than America's and that counterinsurgency doctrine is ill-suited to a situation as complex as Afghanistan. Nonetheless, heopposes the withdrawal timetable proposed by Barack Obama's administration because it's "signaling to the world we are getting out."

Gingrich favors cutting aid to Pakistan and accuses the country's government of having "hid [Osama] bin Laden for at least six years in a military city within a mile of their national defense university."

Military spending: Gingrich characterizes the current budget debate as "historically illiterate politicians who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of the defense budget." He has also, somewhat inaccurately, described current military spending as being at historically low levels. Nonetheless, Gingrich is open to cuts if waste and unnecessary spending can be found. "I'm a hawk, but I'm a cheap hawk," he said at the Oct. 18 debate in Las Vegas.

Israel/Palestine: Gingrich supports moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, effectively recognizing a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He has described Obama's suggestion that a peace process should begin with Israel's moving back to the 1967 borders as "suicidal" and believes that negotiating a peace deal with Hamas would be impossible.  

Thanks to my new best friends again at Foreign Policy . com

 China- Newt is also in the help the Chinese people through involvement and trade. He believes in dealing woth the Chinese people and not the government, though I don’t know how you do that in the world’s worst dictatorship.

Ron Paul- (Must We?)  yes we must.
 

Foreign-policy credentials: Paul served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s,spending time on the ground in countries like Ethiopia, Iran, Pakistan, South Korea, and Turkey. He also sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Overview: Paul's libertarian, noninterventionist, empire-shunning foreign policy is often described as Tea Party isolationist, but he seesit as defending and strengthening the homeland within budgetary and constitutional constraints. "Isolationism is -- is something that the protectionists want," Paul explained in June. "They want to close borders for people coming in, and they want to close trade, and I have no desire to do that all because I'm a free trader and I want as much travel and communication with other countries as possible. This is what the Founders advised. We were never given the authority to be the policemen of the world."

Advisors: The campaign hasn't released much information about who's advising the congressman on foreign policy, but it did announce in August that it had hired constitutional and international-law expert Bruce Fein to advise on legal matters and the "dangers to national security of an increasingly interventionist foreign policy."

Afghanistan/Pakistan: As part of a larger cessation of military operations abroad, Paul wants to swiftly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and transfer power to Afghan officials. "We'll have less danger to us if we don't occupy foreign countries, because that's the top motivation for the desire to come here and kill Americans," he contends. He views the U.S.-Pakistan relationship as an "impossible situation" and worries that Pakistan will be the "next occupation." Paul also condemnsdrone strikes, which he says are inciting anti-Americanism and civil war in Pakistan. "For everyone you kill," he observes, "you probably create 10 new people who hate our guts and would like to do us harm."

Military spending: Military spending and defense spending are two different beasts, according to Paul. "We can spend money on defense -- that's OK -- but we just can't afford all these hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending on all these wars," he argues.

Israel/Palestine: Paul thinks the United States should stay "friends" with Israel but cut off foreign aid, which he says harms Israel's national sovereignty. In a floor speech reproduced in his book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship, Paul recommends staying neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "[I]f we have solidarity with Israel, then we have hostility to the Palestinians," he explains.

China- Ron Paul: I would defer to saying it’s probably been pretty neutral. I don’t think it’s deteriorated, because things are so much better than what I remember in high school. We were fighting the Chinese and the Koreans. One of my teachers was sent to Korea and never came back. So that had an impact on me. So it’s so much better. I think Nixon did a lot of terrible things; I always criticize him about closing the [unintelligible: gold bin?] and all these things. But he opened up the door to China. I think we’re much better off talking to the Chinese and trading with the Chinese, and they have an interest in staying peaceful with us, as we have an interest on them, even though we have our differences on some of the trade and “Why do our companies go to China?” And in some ways, they embarrass us, because they’re more Capitalistic than we are. It’s easier for our businesses to go to China than it is to stay here. That aggravates me. But I blame ourselves for that.

I think Ron Paul’s views speak for themselves, he believes in the end that we are the problem in the world and if we just mind our own business there would be no aggression. I suppose he fails to realize that brutal Military dictatorships predate the USA by the whole history of mankind. America will never start a war by being too strong, but we will be in for a fight we may not win if we are weak. Ron Paul makes us weak if he wins. If we give the middle east to Iran, asia to the Chinese and Europe to the Russians, does that make us safer, if we withdrawal from every where, are all these powers going to just behave, are terrorists going to cease targeting people. Oh God No! Conquerors invade because they want to dominate their neighbors, terrorists kill because they want to force everyone into their way of life. Removing America from the world picture just makes it easy for them.

Again all of our candidates (save one) are strong, except on China and all (save one) would be an improvement over Obama but I think we may be best off with Bachman as she seems to be a little harder line on China.

Until next time keep on the firing line

Just a cotton picking minute, a bonus post

Here we are again, the elections are approaching and the liberal media and establishment Republicans are picking our candidates again. Herman Cain is gone and I am sorry for it. I liked Cain’s economic plan, I liked his view of America, of over regulation and respect for what should be the constitutional limits of the Presidency. I think his story was inspiring and he threatened the liberal hold on the black vote. Most importantly his 9-9-9 plan would have ended the Marxist progressive tax code. Rather all this overcame his shortcomings on foreign policy would have, should have been decided by the voters, it was not, the media decided he had to go. Still I have to lay some blame at Mr. Cain’s door because his poll numbers were still relatively good considering and he might still have been competitive and even won. We’ll never know, will we?

Now Newt is popular and here comes the attack machine at him. I have serious reservations as to rather Newt is a true conservative or just a savvy political insider, however this repetitive refrain of we are all going to die if Romney is not the nominee is getting old. We are letting the media choose our candidates.

Don’t agree? Michelle Bachman is a fine representative, in fact she is historically good, she is Daniel Webster type good. She has held the line on issue after issue; she fought against Obama-care to the bitter end, she is strongly pro-life and she is as knowledgeable and well spoken as any elected Republican since the great Ronald Reagan, yet we will let the media tell us she’s a ditz, oh sure you say, I don’t think she’s a ditz but “people” do so we better not vote for her! The moderates will run away if we vote for her or any conservative for that matter! They would much rather vote for a extreme leftist stateist president who is crushing the economy with regulation and taxes and spending the fortunes of generations yet unborn. Yes the reasonable sensible intelligent independents will surely choose that position unless we have Romney.

Yes these are the same voters who flocked to the Tea party in droves in 2010. The same independents that Obama shows the biggest losses in: yep, nominate a conservative and kiss them goodbye.

One of the things I’ve been trying to do with this blog is to critically analyze our candidates position by position. I am certainly not a big time media figure however I see few others doing this, I see them trying to make it about personalities and gaffes and their version of electability  if you want Newt God bless you, if you want Mitt the same, but right now not one vote has been cast not one decision made, if you like Bachman support her, Santorum Perry or Paul the same, but do it because you believe they are the best!

Do not let the establishment and the media force feed us another Mcain.

This is a bonus, this weekend we’ll be back to business and complete our look at foreign policy.

Until then

Over there, over there! American foreign policy and the GOP candidates

The President of the United States is charged with establishing the nation’s policy as it relates to our dealings with other nations. Specifically the President under article II of the constitution is charged with negotiating treaties, receiving and naming ambassadors, and is the commander and chief of the US military. Congress of course is hardly powerless. Treaties must be ratified, appointments confirmed and the power to declare war resides in the congress. Sometime it would make an interesting study to see where the power of commander and chief can go without a declaration of war and how constitutional is the War Powers Act.  It has never yet been challenged in court. But last time (the week before George Washington was our guest writer) we looked at military policy and as we examine foreign policy this time I want to emphasize particular issues that should be telling as to the overall views of the candidates of America’s place in the world.

There is a saying, “politics ends at the water’s edge”. This may have been true during the Second World War, but lets face reality, bipartisan agreement on foreign policy is almost as mythical as the lock ness monster, aliens in area 51, or an impartial press or a history of political civility. However I doubt foreign policy has ever been more politicized than it currently is. As much as I will remember 9/11 I will never forget Harry Reid going to the Senate floor saying “This war is lost,” or John Kerry calling our troops terrorists to whittle away at the support of the President and for the war effort to enhance their own political standing. Sometimes the American people really tick me off with their short memories, these guys and their ilk still have jobs for cryin’ out loud!

Barrack Hussein Obama came to power promising to fix America’s image in the world. He then proceeded to stand upon foreign soil which contains the blood of American GIs who shed it to defend the freedom of Europe and Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and apologized for the “mistakes and arrogance of America”. This same President deemed it provocative for our soldiers in Haiti to fly the American flag lest it look like an invasion, and in so doing demonstrated his own prejudice against our flag. You see to the Haitian people that flag would not have resembled a hostile invasion it meant a place where you could get food and medicine in safety. How is it that we the people elected a man who is hostile toward everything that is America?

To sum up the Barrack Obama foreign policy I would like to conjure up the image of Groucho Marx. Groucho has just been kicked out of some ritzy club and he gets up dusts himself off, shakes his cigar and says, “I don’t want to be a part of any club that would have me as a member anyway! Haven’t you got any standards around here? Jeesh!”  Likewise President Obama seems to hold the highest disregard for any nation lacking the self respect to be an ally of this God-awful USA. If I looked only at Obama’s record on Israel I would be convinced he is purely anti-Semitic, and I would suggest that his softball approach to Iran is based on the fact that Ahmadinejad doesn’t like that d--- Netanyahu either. But I will withhold the charge of anti-Semitism, Israel is not the only ally the President has snubbed, England, Australia, India have also been slighted, and not only in symbolic gestures like the return of a statue of legendary prime minister Winston Churchill, but in very substantive matters like having our secretary of state recommend that the Brits should negotiate with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, Or worse the selling out of Czechoslovakia and Poland over missile defense systems, leaving those countries vulnerable to Russian aggression. Being America’s friend is dangerous these days. Remember the world’s smartest woman referring to Hosni Mubarek as a valuable friend and a stable government until of course the polls turned against him. Now Mubarak was not a good guy, yet he did keep the peace with Israel and oppose terror organizations. That SOB had to go! But the only Arab Spring uprising we do not support is the one in Iran where our true enemy and real threat resides. Is it really any wonder that Somali pirates began attacking American flagged ships after Obama took command?  

Perhaps right now Mexico and the US have “issues” but our brilliant justice department decides to let guns go to Mexico as part of some stupid operation and then be used to murder and American agent and dozens of Mexican civilians.

Of course the Obama administration will point to killing Bin Laden and I’ll give him that one, but it was the policies of his hated predecessor that made that all possible.

I will continue next time looking at the Republican candidates in detail, but I think it is important to remember as we analyze the good and bad of individual policies of our guys, what are we running against.    

To say that we are without mistakes is silly; we have backed the wrong horse from time to time, Ike dropped the ball big time in 1956 in regard to the Hungarian Uprising, JFK’s early failure at the bay of pigs and his first Vienna Summit with Khrushchev lead the Soviets to believe they could move missiles into Cuba, George H W Bush after prosecuting a masterful victory in the first Gulf War allowed Saddam just enough wiggle room to put down the Shiite uprisings in 1991. Yet let us be honest America has never done so great a disservice to the free peoples of the world as when we cast our ballots for president Obama.

Until next time keep on the firing line! 

our father's thanksgiving wish

as i try to write salient opinions and further the cause of conservatism I am under no delusion. Many who have gone before spoke with an eloquence i can only dream of. Our first President was one such man. here is his proclamation of thanksgiving from 10/3/1789

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Provide for the Common Defense

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I cannot state strongly enough how much of the Federal Government I would like to see done away with. If I could work my will many of the sacred cows in government would be butchered. The EPA – a nice juicy fillet,  the department of education- half a pound of ground round, Medicare, Medicaid and social security- chipped beef and gravy, not to mention such morsels of mince meat as the national endowment for the arts, public radio, or even Harry Reid’s beloved Cowboy Poetry Festival! I am rational enough to understand that all these things can’t simply be done away with in an instant, hence the insidiousness of government social programs; they turn self sufficient men and women into dependants. Let’s be honest, how would the nation survive if Cowboy Poetry was simply ripped away with no adjustment period? In the end, however these and a million other programs and billions of dollars are spent on things to which the constitution gives Washington DC no authority to act at all.

Contrary to the Obama spin conservatives don’t hate taxation and we are more than happy to pay our fair share, what we oppose is the use of a progressive tax code to engineer society to a socialist model (see post on see post on 10/15 and 10/10 for my thoughts on this). What we do not oppose is funding the legitimate functions of government and providing the common defense is one of those legitimate and necessary functions. The conservative view on this issue has been the same since Robert Goodloe Harper coined the phrase “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute”.

Defending America is intertwined with our overall foreign policy and the need for the obtaining and proper dissemination of intelligence. For the sake of discussion I wish to look separately at the overall foreign policy and focus directly on the military and intelligence services in this post.

Herman Cain: The primary duty of the President of the United States is to protect our people. In fact, it is the principal duty of a limited federal government. They must ensure that our military and all of our security agencies are strong and capable.

Unfortunately, national security has become far too politicized with our elected officials using the issue as a means to polarize our country as the “war hawks” and the “peace doves.” In response, the safety and morale of our brave men and women in uniform are often at risk for political gain. The judgment of our military experts on the ground is often underutilized in exchange for political purposes. National security isn’t about politics. It’s about defending America.

While diplomacy is a critical tool in solving the complex security issues we face, it must never compromise military might. Because we are such a free and prosperous people, we are the envy of the world. Many regimes seek to destroy us because they are threatened by our ideals, and they resent our prosperity. We must acknowledge the real and present danger that terrorist nations and organizations pose to our country’s future.

Further, we must stand by our friends and we must not be fooled by our enemies. We should never be deceived by terrorists. They only have one objective, namely, to kill all of us. We must always remain vigilant in dealing with adversaries.

We must support our military with the best training, equipment, technology and infrastructure necessary to keep them in a position to win. We must also provide our men and women in uniform, our veterans and their families with the benefits they deserve for their tremendous sacrifice. These heroes have served us. We must never forget to serve them.

Cain’s position is solid but as with all things Herman Cain we have only his stated opinions which have been remarkably consistent over the years. Also Cain has experience in the Navel Administrative area. He is consistently opposed to using the office of the presidency to promote even concepts he agrees with in ways outside the constitution. Cain’s statements are reminiscent of the Ronald Reagan era concept of peace through strength.

One aspect of intelligence gathering is what has been referred to as enhanced interrogation. Here I a quote from Cain:

I do not agree with torture. However, I will trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture… I agree that it was enhanced interrogation technique… I would return to that policy. I don't see it as torture. I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique…”

This quote deals directly with water boarding, as do most of the questions about enhanced interrogation, yet water boarding was used very rarely, most of these techniques involved various forms of mind games and psychological ploys. If you watched NCIS last week (just about my favorite current show) the trick that Special Agent Gibbs and Director Vance use to trick the younger terrorist brother into telling them the plot to blow up the school bus is a perfect example of how some of these things work. Honestly water boarding is one method I would be hesitant to approve but, any administration serious about protecting the country would attempt to define the exact legal definition of torture and make very clear what cannot be done then do everything short of that definition to acquire intelligence. It’s sad that the politics have gotten so out of hand that we can’t have an intelligent debate, Bush just wanted to torture people and that’s all the left wants to discus, never what of Bush’s methods do we approve and which do we drop.

Lastly lets look at the Patriot Act. Conservatives support this law by a majority but it certainly is a controversial subject, and the more libertarians among us may have issue with it.  Frankly I have read the summaries and a good chunk of the law itself and I don’t see any thing that is so egregious as to threaten our liberty (read for yourselfhttp://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)   I would say we have done more to protect liberty in the war against terror than at most times in the past, i.e. no relocation camps for Muslims, as Roosevelt did in ww2, George Bush would never have proposed any thing near the infringement of the Sedition act of 1918, as did Woodrow Wilson, and even one of our heroes Abe Lincoln suspended Habitués Corpus  during the War Between the States. Given the presidents I think the Patriot Act a reasonable and necessary approach, so long as it is limited to its intended purposes, and I’m comfortable that it has a Sunset.

Herman Cain has said that the Patriot act is about 90% dead on.

Rick Santorum: SANTORUM: I would absolutely not cut one penny out of military spending. The only thing the federal government can do that no other level of government can do is protect us. It is the first duty of the president. And we should have all the resources in place to make sure that we can defend our borders, that we can make sure that when we engage in foreign countries, we do so to succeed. That has been the problem in this administration. We've had political objectives instead of objectives for success. And that's why we haven't succeeded.

Santorum was strong on defense all along and was ahead of the game in identifying the threats of Islamic terror. He is a supporter of the patriot act and has a strongly pro-military voting record. Santorum also understands the difference between enhanced interrogation and torture, and the wrong of one and the necessity of the other.  

Michelle Bachman:

Beyond the basic task of defending our borders and our homeland, it doesn’t take a Nobel Peace Prize to recognize that preserving our security comes down to one simple maxim: stand up for our friends … stand up to our foes … and know the difference.

Understanding those tenets is especially important at a time of unprecedented flux and instability in the Middle East and the rise of powerful competitors including China and Russia.

Instead, we have a President who devalues the special relationship with our most trusted ally, Britain, even as he bows to kings, bends to dictators, bumbles with reset buttons, and babies radical Islamists. We have a President who tells our true friend, Israel, that it must surrender its right to defensible borders to appease forces that have never recognized that nation’s right to exist.

We have a President who stumbles into Libya, without a clear mission or exit strategy, to protect its population, but can’t or won’t devise a strategy to secure our borders. We have a President who has taken his eye off the ball when it comes to the true threat in the Middle East: a potentially nuclear-armed Iran.

We have a President who – in unprecedented fashion – is ravaging our military strength and structure at a time of war, while elevating political correctness over readiness in its ranks. And we have a President who is declaring a premature end to the war on terror against the advice of his own generals.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will do whatever it takes to fulfill the federal government’s foremost responsibility under the Constitution: to keep you safe in an increasingly dangerous world. I will uphold America’s values by standing shoulder-to shoulder with those who share those values and our interests and standing tall against those who don’t. I will devote the resources necessary to maintain our fighting forces as second-to-none, while being judicious in the use of our power. I will ensure our borders are fully secured. And I will not rest until the war on terror is won.

Little doubt than Rep Bachman’s voting record ties perfectly to these positions, I especially agree that our allies must trust us and our enemies must fear us and the nations in between must respect us.

On enhanced interrogations: “We must first acknowledge that the United States is at War.  The liberal left would have you believe that we are not.  Make no mistake the United States is at war with radical Islamic extremism.  The roots of this war grew when we failed to stand by the Shah of Iran and allowed radical Islam to take control”

“President Obama has wrongly attempted to criminalize the war.  President Obama, you can’t keep America safe by reading terrorists Miranda Rights, when A). they aren’t Americans and B). they have no rights.  If the president hasn’t noticed, these are terrorists, bent on killing Americans–why would the president give rights toterrorists that we don’t extend even to foreign civilians?!

“I can assure you that as president we will not allow Al Qaeda in our criminal courts, and I’ll repeal this president’s executive order banning the CIA from using methods of interrogation beyond the Army Field Manual, and I’ll pursue radical Islamic terrorists as Sen. John McCain has said, to the gates of hell.

“We must understand our enemy; that they are willing to die for their cause and consider it an honor to do so. Understanding our enemy through effective intelligence is critical to victory in the war on terror.

Finally on the Patriot act: Bachman supported the patriot act and has detailed her reasons for doing so a brief summary is found at http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/163633-bachmann-defends-vote-for-patriot-act-after-fielding-complaints-about-government-over-reach

Rick Parry:  Rick Perry believes that our nation is most secure when we have the strongest economy in the world. His first priority will be to get America’s economic engine running at full speed to restore our global economic leadership, and to ensure America has the resources needed to maintain a strong, modern defense. By the same token, we need to maintain our strong presence to defend our interests around the globe while we rebuild our economy at home.

Perry believes in American exceptionalism and rejects the notion our president should apologize for our country. He believes allies and adversaries alike must know that America seeks peace from a position of strength. We must strengthen our diplomatic relationships, and stand firm with our allies against our common enemies.

While advancing our interests abroad, Perry believes it is equally important to defend our interests at home by securing our border.

As president, Perry will substantially increase manpower, technology and fencing along the border to protect the American homeland and stop illegal immigration. This strategy has proven effective in Texas, where Gov. Perry has directed nearly $400 million in state tax dollars to do the federal government’s job of securing the border.

Perry will deploy thousands of National Guardsmen to the border until a sufficient number of border patrol agents can be hired and trained. He will order federal officials to expedite construction of strategic fencing, especially in high traffic areas where manpower alone is insufficient to do the job. And he will make greater use of unmanned aerial assets to gather reliable, real-time intelligence that law enforcement can immediately act upon.

Perry also gives a passionate case for enhanced interrogations, here is a link to his answer in a recent debate http://www.therightscoop.com/rick-perry-slams-ron-paul-on-enhanced-interrogations/

And on the Patriot act; he is a supporter.

1.                               Newt Gingrich:  
Understand our enemies and tell the truth about them. We are engaged in a long war against radical Islamism, a belief system adhered to by a small minority of Muslims but nonetheless a powerful and organized ideology within Islamic thought that is totally incompatible with the modern world.

2.                              Think big. America currently lacks a unified grand strategy for defeating radical Islamism.  The result is that we currently view Iraq, Afghanistan, and the many other danger spots of the globe as if they are isolated, independent situations.  Only a grand strategy for marginalizing, isolating, and defeating radical Islamists across the world will lead to victory.

3.                              Know our values. America’s foreign policy must begin by understanding who we are as a country.  We are, as Ronald Reagan said, the world’s “abiding alternative to tyranny.” Therefore, America’s foreign policy must be to ensure our own survival and protect those who share our values.

4.                              Military force must be used judiciously and with clear, obtainable objectives understood by Congress. 

5.                              Implement an American Energy Plan to reduce the world’s dependence on oil from dangerous and unstable countries, especially in the Middle East.

6.                              Secure the border to prevent terrorist organizations from sneaking agents and weapons into the United States.

7.                              Incentivize math and science education in America to ensure the men and women of our Armed Forces always have the most advanced and powerful weapons in the world at their disposal. 



Newt is solid here and I am glad that he reminded me about the issue of not putting our troops under UN control.

As for enhanced interrogations

GINGRICH: "It is the rule of law. That is explicitly false. It is the rule of law. If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannot go to court.... Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law."

And the Patriot act "We must ensure that the legal tools provided are not abused, and indeed, that they do not undermine the very foundation our country was built upon."

"I strongly believe the Patriot Act was not created to be used in crimes unrelated to terrorism."

"Recent reports, including one from the General Accounting Office, however indicate that the Patriot Act has been employed in investigations unconnected to terrorism or national security.

In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our enemies in the war against terrorism abuse the Islamic law known as the Sharia that they claim to value. It is perversely used as justification for their horrific and wanton acts of violence.

We must demonstrate to the world that America is the best example of what a solid Constitution with properly enforced laws can bring to those who desire freedom and safety. If we become hypocrites about our own legal system, how can we sell it abroad or question legal systems different than our own?

I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing "mission creep" into areas outside of national security.

Similarly, if prosecutors lack the necessary legislation to combat other serious domestic crimes, crimes not connected to terrorism, then lawmakers should seek to give prosecutors separate legislation to provide them the tools they need, but again not at the expense of civil rights. But in no case should prosecutors of domestic crimes seek to use tools intended for national security purposes.

This war against terrorism requires Americans and American institutions to have the "courage to be safe," this courage must include keeping to the American principles that have made this country great for more than 200 years."

Mitt Romney: The Constitution places responsibility for national defense and foreign relations on the shoulders of the president. The president must have the judgment, vision, wisdom, and leadership qualities to understand the looming threats our nation faces and the course of action he will pursue. This White Paper explains the threats to our nation’s interests and ideals, sets out Mitt Romney’s foreign policy strategy and principles, and discusses his policies on some of the most significant challenges facing the United States.

This is an excerpt from the summary of Romney’s foreign policy view the whole thing is too long to cut and paste but I strongly urge you to read the whole thing http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/10/fact-sheet-mitt-romneys-strategy-ensure-american-century some elements of this will also be disseminated as part of a broader foreign policy study next time.

As much as I question many of Gov, Romney’s views on domestic issues he does seem to have a very clear view on America’s place in the world.

Enhanced interrogations: But I do not believe, as a presidential candidate that it’s wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we’ll use in interrogating people. I oppose torture. I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form. As I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don’t think it is wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use. And that is something I would like to receive the counsel of not only Senator McCain but of a lot of other people. And there are people who for many, many years get the information we need to make sure to protect our country. By the way, I wanna make sure these folks are kept at Guantanamo. I don’t want people who are carrying out attacks in this country are brought into our jail system and be given legal representation in this country. I wanna make sure that what happen to Khalid Sheikh Mohamed happens to other people who are terrorists. He was captured, he was the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 tragedy, and he turn to his captors and he said, “I’ll see you in New York with my lawyers.” I presumed ACLU layers. That’s not what happened. He went to Guantanamo and he met G.I and CIA interrogators and that’s just exactly how it ought to be.”

Enough said

Patriot act: The former Massachusetts governor also praised President Bush for enactment of the Patriot Act. Critics of the law contend that the government has invaded Americans' privacy using the newfound powers of the act, such as the Justice Department's authority on wiretapping.

"Our president, for all the criticism he receives, has kept America safe these last six years, and he has done it by: One pursuing the Patriot Act, which has given us the intelligence information we needed to find out who the bad guys were and get them out before they got us, and No. 2, when al-Qaida was calling America, he made sure someone here was listening," Romney said. "And No. 3 ... when terrorists were detained, were captured, he made sure we interrogated them."

After weeks of being disappointed with Gov Romney, I must say on this issue I find him perhaps our strongest candidate. I also like the qualified support Newt gives to the Patriot act, as we do not want it to expand.  However I think any of these candidates, so long as they have the right military advisors, and as long as they make decisions for security and not political reasons would do fine.

And then there’s Ron.

Ron Paul:  As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.

In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.

Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.

That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

* Revitalize the military for the 21^st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.

Well enough, but Ron Paul’s opposition to notion building and being the world’s policeman leads him to this view on Iran Asked what the U.S. should do to persuade Iran not to pursue a nuclear weapons capability, Paul replied, “Well, maybe offering friendship to them. I mean, didn’t we talk to the Soviets? Didn’t we talk to the Chinese? They had thousands of these weapons.”

He challenged the notion that Iran poses a security threat.

“The Iranians can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves,” he said. “For them to be a threat to us or to anybody in the region, I think it’s just blown out of proportion.”

You know what Ron, your right what possible threat could nuclear weapons be in the hand of a regime that wishes to blow Israel off the face of the Earth and  usher in the 12^th imam by creating world chaos?  

Another quote: "I think a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon," Paul said. "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and [station] all our troops back at home. This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases - now they've just invented a weapon that can hit any spot in the world in one hour. I mean, what's this idea? This is old-fashioned idea that you have to keep troops on 900 bases around the world. Makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt. We can't afford it any longer."

The famously outspoken congressman added that he'd bring home troops even from Japan and South Korea. "Absolutely. And the people are with me on that. Because we can't afford it. It would save us a lot of money. All those troops would spend their money here at home," he said.

Besides, he added, "Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it's a danger to our national defense. We can save a lot of money cutting out the military “

Do we really want a President who thinks all we need for defense are a few submarines?

Not surprisingly Rep Paul opposes the patriot act and his arguments as always are well stated and persuasive but I do not personally feel that the patriot act violates the 4^th amendment.

Also Rep. Paul opposes enhanced interrogations and does not distinguish, as near as I can tell, between American practices and torture.

Ron Paul is a dangerous combination of Neville Chamberlain and Andre Maginot. He would negotiate with our enemies and abandon our allies like Israel the way Chamberlain made nice with the Nazis and abandoned Europe and eventually England had to fight a much more powerful German empire than would have been the case. Meanwhile we would be building our own version of the Maginot line out of submarines? That worked well for the French.

Sorry to all the Ron Revolution guys out there and you are getting stronger, this disqualifies Ron Paul from receiving my vote.

Until next time keep on the firing line