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!