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 yourself
http://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.
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.
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.
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 21st 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 12th 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 4th 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
