I watched the Republican debate on Thursday with great interest. There were complaints among many people that the debate did not have any of the big names. But I looked at it as a good opportunity to get more familiar with lesser known candidates. Participating in the debate on Thursday was Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson.
A top issue for me in determining which presidential candidate to vote for will be national security. I view national security as the most important issue that a president faces. This is because of the tremendous amount of power that the president has in national security. As Commander-in-Chief, he often needs to make decisions quickly. With domestic issues the decisions made are more deliberate with a greater amount of consultation with Congress. That is not to say that domestic issues are not an important factor in choosing a president, the president still has great influence in determining many domestic issues. But his impact on foreign policy is even greater.
After watching the debate, here is my rankings of the Republican presidential candidates. These rankings will only include those candidates who participated in the debate:
1. Tim Pawlenty
2. Rick Santorum
3. Herman Cain
4. Ron Paul
5. Gary Johnson
Tim Pawlenty
Tim Pawlenty showed that he has a good understanding of the threat that jihadism is towards to United States. For a president to have an effective national security policies, he needs to have a good understanding of the ideology of our enemies. To “know thy enemy” has always been an essential part of achieving a long term military victory. The following quote from the debate shows that Pawlenty understands our enemy:
“There is a group of individuals who are radical jihadists we need to call them by name. They believe it is okay to kill people in the name of their religion. It is not all of Islam. It is not all Muslims. But there is a subgroup who believe it is okay. In fact it is their plan and design to kill people. The first order of business of the United States federal government is to protect this country and the American people. The people and the mindset that killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens on September 11th, 2001 would have kill not 3,000, but 300,000 if they could have or three million or 30 million. We need to do everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen. I support enhanced interrogation techniques under limited circumstances.”
Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum also has a good understanding of the necessity to know the ideology of our enemies. Chris Wallace asked Santorum a question about some comments he made about Muslims being predisposed to fundamentalism and if it would be a problem for a president to be perceived as anti-Islam. I do agree with Santorum’s answer. It is important for us to be honest about the ideology that we face. But at the same time the president needs to be careful about how he says things to not needlessly offend people. Santorum hasn’t always been that careful, but he had a good answer today:
“Well I am not anti-Islam. First, what I’m doing is just recognizing the reality and the reality is that the version of Islam that is practiced in the Middle East that is growing and spreading is one that is not going to be one that we can deal with very easily, it’s one that requires…reformation. It requires some sort of introspection within the Islamic world…It’s time for us to engage those in the Muslim world and there are many in the Muslim world who want to abandon these radical principles and want to fight those who are advocating those…We need to be a government that talks about those problems, we cannot continue to put the ideological battle in the closet and not bring it out and talk about it and deal with it.”
Santorum also voiced opposition to military efforts in Libya. I believe that it is good policy for our country to support the people of the Middle East who are trying to free themselves from dictators. In the long term, people need to be free if we want to hope to lessen the appeal of terrorism. The United States should always be on the right side, we should not support dictators. The current military action in Libya is an opportunity to help the Libyan people to gain their freedom. We should not pass up this opportunity.
Herman Cain
While Herman Cain seemed to have a good understanding of some domestic issues, his understanding of foreign policy appeared to be lacking. His answer to foreign policy questions seemed to be an exercise in avoiding answering the question. Bret Baier mentioned that Cain about something he said which was that if the generals said they had a plan in Afghanistan in which they could win, he would follow that plan. But if they said that we couldn’t win than we should leave. Baier asked Cain, “You’re running for president, after ten years in Afghanistan, you don’t have your own plan yet about what you would do in Afghanistan? Cain’s answer was a justification about how he didn’t have an answer. I understand a candidate doesn’t have as much information as the president does, but he still should be able to come to an informed opinion about Afghanistan with publicly available information.
“No because it’s not clear what the mission is, that’s the bigger problem. It’s not clear what the mission is, it’s not real clear to the American people what our interests are and then thirdly it’s not clear what the roadmap to victory is.” Baier had a follow up question asking Cain about what he thinks winning is. Cain responded with, “My point is, the experts and their advice and their input would be the basis for me making that decision. I’m not privy to a lot of confidential information since I am not in government and I’m not in administration. One of the things that I have always prided myself on, is making an informed decision based on knowing all of the facts.”
Ron Paul
Ron Paul was predictably anti-war in the debate. I could not vote for Paul because of his extreme positions of abandoning the world. Bret Baier asked him if we would have caught bin Laden if we had left Afghanistan earlier as Paul has been calling for. Paul’s answer downplays the role of troops in Afghanistan in capturing bin Laden. If we followed the policy of Ron Paul we would not have been putting pressure on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He also said that we went to Afghanistan to get bin Laden. Which is true, but that was never the only mission in Afghanistan. It is a broader mission. Paul said:
“Absolutely not, I mean he wasn’t caught in Afghanistan. Nation building in Afghanistan and telling those people how to live and getting involved in running their country hardly had anything to do with finding the information where he was being held in a country that we give billions of dollars of foreign aid to, at the same time we are bombing that country. So it’s the policy that is at fault. No, not having the troops in Afghanistan wouldn’t have hurt. But we went to Afghanistan to get him and he hasn’t been there. Now that he’s killed, boy it is a wonderful time for this country now to reassess it and get the troops out of Afghanistan and end that war that hasn’t helped us and hasn’t helped anybody in the Middle East.
Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson is very similar to Ron Paul. They are both anti-war libertarians. I agree with both of them on many domestic issues. But the difference is that Johnson is not a social conservative, he is in favor of legal abortion. Bret Baier asked Johnson about a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Johnson answered:
“First of all, I’m not in favor of a timetable, I’m in belief that that timetable should be tomorrow and I realize that tomorrow may involve several months.”
Below is a video of the debate in it's entirety.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
"Your Pro-choice for abortion,... but You're Really Anti-choice On Any Other Consumer Item"
Rand Paul is awesome. Below is a clip of him questioning someone from the Department of Energy. His main question is essentially, how can you be pro-choice for abortion, but don't respect the choice of consumers?
I've talked about my frustration with toilets for a while. I first noticed it when my family moved to a new house, and suddenly, we had to flush our new toilets like 5 times to get the same job that one flush accomplished in the old house.
There was even an episode of "Unhappily Ever After" dedicated to this problem. The family went around stealing old toilets, that could actually flush stuff, from various places and installing them in the homes of their "clients" for a small fee. It was brilliant -- the episode, not the show, although anytime you have a puppet voiced by Bobcat Goldthwait, you have yourself a winning formula in my book.
I've always wondered if these liberal "busybodies" ever realize that their well intentioned policies can have worse unintended consequences than the original problem.
I'm sure the logic behind using only 1.6 gallons of water per flush was that it would save more water than the 3.4 older toilets used. So the government just mandated it, meaning us consumers no longer had a choice.
The irony, without getting too graphic, is that what used to take one flush will now take me 3 or 4, thus using more water than the original toilets used to.
Enjoy the show:
Do we really live in a free society if the government can't even stay out of our bathrooms?
I've talked about my frustration with toilets for a while. I first noticed it when my family moved to a new house, and suddenly, we had to flush our new toilets like 5 times to get the same job that one flush accomplished in the old house.
There was even an episode of "Unhappily Ever After" dedicated to this problem. The family went around stealing old toilets, that could actually flush stuff, from various places and installing them in the homes of their "clients" for a small fee. It was brilliant -- the episode, not the show, although anytime you have a puppet voiced by Bobcat Goldthwait, you have yourself a winning formula in my book.
I've always wondered if these liberal "busybodies" ever realize that their well intentioned policies can have worse unintended consequences than the original problem.
I'm sure the logic behind using only 1.6 gallons of water per flush was that it would save more water than the 3.4 older toilets used. So the government just mandated it, meaning us consumers no longer had a choice.
The irony, without getting too graphic, is that what used to take one flush will now take me 3 or 4, thus using more water than the original toilets used to.
Enjoy the show:
Do we really live in a free society if the government can't even stay out of our bathrooms?
Monday, February 21, 2011
Orrin Hatch
Orrin Hatch is a pro life Republican. He is a social conservative, but he has not been as good on economic issues.
Economic Responsibility
Orrin Hatch voted against Obama’s stimulus bill and supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. He has shown that he is a fiscal conservative when there is a Democrat in the White House. The balanced budget amendment is a good long term solution to force Congress to make tough decisions about spending. But Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass. I want my senator to be able to show self restraint in the event that the balanced budget amendment does not pass. I want my senator to be fiscally responsible when the Republicans are in power. Senator Hatch has shown that he is willing to support corporate welfare with his vote in support of the Wall Street bailout in 2008. This bailout laid the foundation for the future bailouts of the Obama administration.
Senator Hatch in his efforts to get reelected has said that his vote in favor of the Wall Street bailout was probably a mistake. But he still says that without the bailout “we would have gone into a depression.” So according to Hatch his vote to avoid a depression was a mistake. This shows that he is wrong on two counts. First, we don’t need the government to bailout private banks to save the economy. There is no such thing as too big to fail. The government should not be picking winners and losers in the economy, instead economic prosperity should be determined by the free market. Secondly, according to Hatch’s logic he should vote according to what will best help him to get reelected. If his vote was a mistake, yet it avoided a depression, that means he believes his reelection is more important than the state of the economy.
Supports 10th amendment
Senator Hatch has not been a strong supporter of the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment is important in limiting the power of the federal government. Senator Hatch voted for No Child Left Behind. This law increased the involvement of the federal government in education. Education is not a federal responsibility, it is a responsibility best left to the states.
Senator Hatch has been a vocal opponent of Obamacare, specifically the individual mandate. After a federal judge in Florida ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, Hatch voiced his support. From his press release:
“Today’s ruling affirms that the Constitution is not in the eye of the congressional beholder, that the Constitution set real limits that the federal government must obey,” Hatch said after Vinson’s decision. “If Congress had taken the Constitution seriously two years ago, we would already have in place commonsense solutions to our healthcare problems that did not undermine the Constitution or individual liberty.
“Simply put, Congress does not have the legal authority to tell Utahns and other Americans that they must buy health insurance or else,” Hatch added. “The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but not to tell the American people what they must buy.”
But Hatch wasn’t always against the individual mandate. In 1993 Hatch supported a bill that would require an individual mandate. Hatch has shown that he is willing to ignore the constitution, when it is a Republican idea. I want a senator who supports the constitution regardless of the party affiliation of those who seek to violate it.
Foreign policy
Senator Hatch has been a supporter of the counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan. He has said, “The Taliban insurgency is fighting to overthrow the current government, threatening to return Afghanistan to a lawless state where vast areas would serve as a safe have to international terrorist networks like al Qaeda. We cannot allow that to happen,” Senator Hatch understands the foolishness of setting a timetable fro withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Energy independence
Orrin Hatch has supported bills that remove restrictions on drilling for oil and voted against bills that add restrictions to drilling for oil. Hatch also supports nuclear energy.
Border Security
Senator Hatch is sponsoring a bill that would create an exit program for people who are in the United States on visas. Overstaying visas is a huge problem in the United States. I tend to look with suspicion anything that Hatch is doing this year and next year. His biggest commitment seems to be to his reelection. But his bill does seem to have some positive things in it.
In 2003, Orrin Hatch co-sponsored the DREAM Act whereby children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. The problem with this is that it creates an incentive for people to come into the country illegally. That is the opposite of border security. Hatch now opposes the current DREAM Act. I’m sure he has some reason that he gives, some change that has been made. But he does seem to have a pattern of changing many positions ever since Bennett got defeated in the last election. I think that the best way to determine how he would vote when his job is not in danger is to look at how he voted when his job was not in danger.
I would like to see somebody challenge Hatch for his job who supports a smaller federal government.
Economic Responsibility
Orrin Hatch voted against Obama’s stimulus bill and supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. He has shown that he is a fiscal conservative when there is a Democrat in the White House. The balanced budget amendment is a good long term solution to force Congress to make tough decisions about spending. But Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass. I want my senator to be able to show self restraint in the event that the balanced budget amendment does not pass. I want my senator to be fiscally responsible when the Republicans are in power. Senator Hatch has shown that he is willing to support corporate welfare with his vote in support of the Wall Street bailout in 2008. This bailout laid the foundation for the future bailouts of the Obama administration.
Senator Hatch in his efforts to get reelected has said that his vote in favor of the Wall Street bailout was probably a mistake. But he still says that without the bailout “we would have gone into a depression.” So according to Hatch his vote to avoid a depression was a mistake. This shows that he is wrong on two counts. First, we don’t need the government to bailout private banks to save the economy. There is no such thing as too big to fail. The government should not be picking winners and losers in the economy, instead economic prosperity should be determined by the free market. Secondly, according to Hatch’s logic he should vote according to what will best help him to get reelected. If his vote was a mistake, yet it avoided a depression, that means he believes his reelection is more important than the state of the economy.
Supports 10th amendment
Senator Hatch has not been a strong supporter of the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment is important in limiting the power of the federal government. Senator Hatch voted for No Child Left Behind. This law increased the involvement of the federal government in education. Education is not a federal responsibility, it is a responsibility best left to the states.
Senator Hatch has been a vocal opponent of Obamacare, specifically the individual mandate. After a federal judge in Florida ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, Hatch voiced his support. From his press release:
“Today’s ruling affirms that the Constitution is not in the eye of the congressional beholder, that the Constitution set real limits that the federal government must obey,” Hatch said after Vinson’s decision. “If Congress had taken the Constitution seriously two years ago, we would already have in place commonsense solutions to our healthcare problems that did not undermine the Constitution or individual liberty.
“Simply put, Congress does not have the legal authority to tell Utahns and other Americans that they must buy health insurance or else,” Hatch added. “The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but not to tell the American people what they must buy.”
But Hatch wasn’t always against the individual mandate. In 1993 Hatch supported a bill that would require an individual mandate. Hatch has shown that he is willing to ignore the constitution, when it is a Republican idea. I want a senator who supports the constitution regardless of the party affiliation of those who seek to violate it.
Foreign policy
Senator Hatch has been a supporter of the counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan. He has said, “The Taliban insurgency is fighting to overthrow the current government, threatening to return Afghanistan to a lawless state where vast areas would serve as a safe have to international terrorist networks like al Qaeda. We cannot allow that to happen,” Senator Hatch understands the foolishness of setting a timetable fro withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Energy independence
Orrin Hatch has supported bills that remove restrictions on drilling for oil and voted against bills that add restrictions to drilling for oil. Hatch also supports nuclear energy.
Border Security
Senator Hatch is sponsoring a bill that would create an exit program for people who are in the United States on visas. Overstaying visas is a huge problem in the United States. I tend to look with suspicion anything that Hatch is doing this year and next year. His biggest commitment seems to be to his reelection. But his bill does seem to have some positive things in it.
In 2003, Orrin Hatch co-sponsored the DREAM Act whereby children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. The problem with this is that it creates an incentive for people to come into the country illegally. That is the opposite of border security. Hatch now opposes the current DREAM Act. I’m sure he has some reason that he gives, some change that has been made. But he does seem to have a pattern of changing many positions ever since Bennett got defeated in the last election. I think that the best way to determine how he would vote when his job is not in danger is to look at how he voted when his job was not in danger.
I would like to see somebody challenge Hatch for his job who supports a smaller federal government.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Barack Obama
In this blog I am going to be writing about how I am deciding who to vote for in the 2012 elections. Barack Obama will be the first one to run through my vote deciding machine. Clearly, I won’t vote for Obama, but just for fun I put him through the machine.
Republican
Barack Obama is not a Republican. Shocking I know. Barack Obama is the reason why it will be important to find a good Republican candidate to face him in 2012. The reason why I even put Republican as a category is that I don't want to waste time investigating the records of libertarian type candidates, who I may agree with on many things, but have no chance at winning. I accept the reality that we live in a two party system, but that does not mean we only have two choices. There will be many choices in the Republican primary.
Partial birth abortion
According to my machine, I should not vote for any person who supports partial birth abortion. Barack Obama, of course, goes even further then just supporting partial birth abortion, to supporting infanticide. Here is Barack Obama's pro-abortion record since he has become president.
Economic Responsibility
Obama has been amazingly irresponsible. When Bush was president he argued against raising the debt ceiling. But now that he is president with debt over $14 trillion, he argues that the debt ceiling must be raised. When Bush was president he said: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Now it would be a catastrophe if the debt ceiling was not raised.
Obama is a proud supporter of his stimulus package whereby jobs are created by such things as building tunnels for turtles to cross under a road. He has also shown his financial irresponsibility by his support of his unconstitutional health care bill. According to Obama, repealing his health care law will add to the deficit. Not spending as much money will add to the deficit. Classic liberal logic. Obama was also supportive of the bailout that started it all. He voted for the bank bailout when he was a senator.
10th amendment
Obama is a fierce opponent of the 10th amendment. The health care law is a prime example. The most obvious violation of the Constitution in the health care law is the individual mandate. I see nowhere in the Constitution where Congress is granted the authority to force individuals to buy health insurance. A federal judge in Florida agrees that Obamacare is unconstitutional. He wrote: "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain... and we would have a Constitution in name only." Judge Vinson on Obama's unconstitutional health care law. This law isn't about health care, it's about Obama's indifference to constitutional limitations on his power.
Foreign Policy
Obama did increase the amount of troops sent to Afghanistan, but he did not send as many troops as were requested by Gen. Petraeus. This makes it difficult to hold areas that are captured, this is an essential part of fighting a counterinsurgency. His timetable that he set up to begin withdrawing troops beginning in July 2011 makes it almost impossible for the United States to succeed. To succeed in a counterinsurgency effort it is necessary to win over the population. The population is more likely to side with the Taliban than the United States when the United States announces that it will withdraw at a certain date. This would make it very scary for an Afghani to side with the U.S., just to face the wrath of the Taliban after withdrawal. A date for withdrawal also gives a boost to the morale of the Taliban. Obama has shown that he does not have the commitment that a Commander-in-Chief should have for victory in Afghanistan.
Obama is also part of the politically correct culture in which reality is hidden to avoid hurt feelings. The Obama administration still refuses to admit that Nidal Hasan, the man who murdered soldiers at Fort Hood, was motivated by religious reasons. This despite the fact that Hasan publicly stated his radical views in support of suicide bombings. Also, Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlawki, a member of al Qaeda in Yemen. The fact that Hasan screamed “Allah Akbar” as he went on his murderous rampage was also not enough evidence to conclude that he was religiously motivated. A recent report has discovered that political correctness was responsible for the Fort Hood murders. Obama has banned the words jihad and Islam from a National Security Strategy document. When fighting a war it is always helpful to stay in the land of reality. Not saying the word jihad doesn’t make the jihad go away. It just makes it more difficult to understand the motivation of our enemies.
Energy Independence
Obama has shown that he is not serious about energy independence. He would rather have us get our oil from Saudi Arabia then to drill it ourselves. He has banned offshore drilling in the Atlantic for seven years. Obama has shown that he is an opponent of drilling for oil. Then there is Obama’s support of cap and trade, which he says will bankrupt the coal industry. Sorry Obama, our economy is not capable of being ran completely by the wind and the sun. His opposition to domestic energy production makes our country increasingly dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia.
Border Security
Governor Rick Perry of Texas wrote a four page letter to President Obama detailing the failure of the Obama administration to secure the border and requesting additional resources to secure the border. The Obama administration has sued the state of Arizona over Arizona’s efforts to secure the border. The state of Arizona has sued the federal government for its failure to secure the border. It is clear that Obama has not done enough to secure the border. Perhaps if the federal government would not be doing so many things that it is not supposed to do it would have the time and resources to do the things that it is supposed to do.
After much investigation I have concluded that I won't vote for Obama for president. I put in the data and my voting machine says that Obama would be a horrible president. Of course this was already obvious because I have witnessed him be a horrible president already.
Republican
Barack Obama is not a Republican. Shocking I know. Barack Obama is the reason why it will be important to find a good Republican candidate to face him in 2012. The reason why I even put Republican as a category is that I don't want to waste time investigating the records of libertarian type candidates, who I may agree with on many things, but have no chance at winning. I accept the reality that we live in a two party system, but that does not mean we only have two choices. There will be many choices in the Republican primary.
Partial birth abortion
According to my machine, I should not vote for any person who supports partial birth abortion. Barack Obama, of course, goes even further then just supporting partial birth abortion, to supporting infanticide. Here is Barack Obama's pro-abortion record since he has become president.
Economic Responsibility
Obama has been amazingly irresponsible. When Bush was president he argued against raising the debt ceiling. But now that he is president with debt over $14 trillion, he argues that the debt ceiling must be raised. When Bush was president he said: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Now it would be a catastrophe if the debt ceiling was not raised.
Obama is a proud supporter of his stimulus package whereby jobs are created by such things as building tunnels for turtles to cross under a road. He has also shown his financial irresponsibility by his support of his unconstitutional health care bill. According to Obama, repealing his health care law will add to the deficit. Not spending as much money will add to the deficit. Classic liberal logic. Obama was also supportive of the bailout that started it all. He voted for the bank bailout when he was a senator.
10th amendment
Obama is a fierce opponent of the 10th amendment. The health care law is a prime example. The most obvious violation of the Constitution in the health care law is the individual mandate. I see nowhere in the Constitution where Congress is granted the authority to force individuals to buy health insurance. A federal judge in Florida agrees that Obamacare is unconstitutional. He wrote: "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain... and we would have a Constitution in name only." Judge Vinson on Obama's unconstitutional health care law. This law isn't about health care, it's about Obama's indifference to constitutional limitations on his power.
Foreign Policy
Obama did increase the amount of troops sent to Afghanistan, but he did not send as many troops as were requested by Gen. Petraeus. This makes it difficult to hold areas that are captured, this is an essential part of fighting a counterinsurgency. His timetable that he set up to begin withdrawing troops beginning in July 2011 makes it almost impossible for the United States to succeed. To succeed in a counterinsurgency effort it is necessary to win over the population. The population is more likely to side with the Taliban than the United States when the United States announces that it will withdraw at a certain date. This would make it very scary for an Afghani to side with the U.S., just to face the wrath of the Taliban after withdrawal. A date for withdrawal also gives a boost to the morale of the Taliban. Obama has shown that he does not have the commitment that a Commander-in-Chief should have for victory in Afghanistan.
Obama is also part of the politically correct culture in which reality is hidden to avoid hurt feelings. The Obama administration still refuses to admit that Nidal Hasan, the man who murdered soldiers at Fort Hood, was motivated by religious reasons. This despite the fact that Hasan publicly stated his radical views in support of suicide bombings. Also, Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlawki, a member of al Qaeda in Yemen. The fact that Hasan screamed “Allah Akbar” as he went on his murderous rampage was also not enough evidence to conclude that he was religiously motivated. A recent report has discovered that political correctness was responsible for the Fort Hood murders. Obama has banned the words jihad and Islam from a National Security Strategy document. When fighting a war it is always helpful to stay in the land of reality. Not saying the word jihad doesn’t make the jihad go away. It just makes it more difficult to understand the motivation of our enemies.
Energy Independence
Obama has shown that he is not serious about energy independence. He would rather have us get our oil from Saudi Arabia then to drill it ourselves. He has banned offshore drilling in the Atlantic for seven years. Obama has shown that he is an opponent of drilling for oil. Then there is Obama’s support of cap and trade, which he says will bankrupt the coal industry. Sorry Obama, our economy is not capable of being ran completely by the wind and the sun. His opposition to domestic energy production makes our country increasingly dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia.
Border Security
Governor Rick Perry of Texas wrote a four page letter to President Obama detailing the failure of the Obama administration to secure the border and requesting additional resources to secure the border. The Obama administration has sued the state of Arizona over Arizona’s efforts to secure the border. The state of Arizona has sued the federal government for its failure to secure the border. It is clear that Obama has not done enough to secure the border. Perhaps if the federal government would not be doing so many things that it is not supposed to do it would have the time and resources to do the things that it is supposed to do.
After much investigation I have concluded that I won't vote for Obama for president. I put in the data and my voting machine says that Obama would be a horrible president. Of course this was already obvious because I have witnessed him be a horrible president already.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
How I will vote
The last post that I wrote was July 28, 2010. I am going to try to start updating my political blog more regularly than every six months. Getting involved early in the process is important to select the best candidates. Barack Obama announced that he would run for president in February 2007, so I suspect that candidates will be announcing their bids for the presidency shortly. In this blog I am going to be writing about the process that I will take in choosing who I think should be President, my Senator, and my Representative in 2012.
I came up with a list that I am going to use to help me decide who the best presidential candidate will be. This list can change as I think of other important issues, it should not be considered as a legally binding contract. The list is as follows:
Republican
I am only looking at candidates who run as Republicans. Often times I agree with candidates who run in third parties such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party, but I live in the world of reality. It would not be a good thing for these third parties to become stronger to compete with the Republican Party. If we were to live in a three party system with the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Democrat Party, the Democrats would have the advantage. There is no reason why any serious conservative candidate should not run as a Republican.
Against Partial Birth Abortion
I view any candidate who would support this practice as having a lack of morals. I will not vote for any person who believes that it should be legal to halfhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif way deliver a baby so that it’s legs are out of the mother, then have a “doctor” puncture the babies skull and suck its brains out. High standards indeed. Of course it doesn’t need to be mentioned that I will not support any candidate who thinks it should be legal to kill the baby after birth. Of course no mainstream politician could take such an obviously evil position.
Economic Responsibility
I am opposed to the big spenders, those who take the position that we should spend more money than we have. This includes any person who supported the Obama stimulus bill. I will not vote for any supporters of corporate welfare. Those who make taxpayers pay to fix the mistakes made by private businesses. Businesses need to be free to fail. “Too big to fail” is repeatedly justified for bailing out different companies. I will not vote for supporters of bailouts of companies, banks, or states. I am looking for candidates who support a balanced budget amendment or have some other long term solution to our economic problems. I am looking for candidates who are willing to make the tough decisions regarding entitlement reform.
Supports 10th Amendment
I am looking for candidates who support the entire Constitution, but my mahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifin focus is on the 10th Amendment. This is because this is the most neglected Amendment of the Constitution. It has almost no supporters in all of Congress. The 10th Amendment is as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This means if it’s not in the Constitution, it is left to the states or the people. It’s pretty straight forward.
Foreign Policy
I am looking for candidates who support using all of the military effort that is necessary to win the war in Afghanistan. This means I want a candidate who supports fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. I want to see a candidate that understands counterinsurgency strategy. There is no purpose in defeating the jihadists in Afghanistan if they just take over the government when we leave. I want a candidate who supports actively fighting jihadists abroad. I am looking for someone who understands that the fight against the jihadists is more than a simple law enforcement matter, it is war. This is a war that takes place wherever the jihadists are. If they are Pakistan we fight them there, if they are in Yemen we fight them there. We should support the actions of government’s that are fighting the jihadists. When necessary we should use drone attacks or other means to kill the jihadists. I want a candidate who is willing to accurately describe our enemy. Who isn’t afraid to say “jihadist” or “Islamic extremist.” Our politically correct culture has prevented many people from getting an accurate understanding of our enemies.
Energy Independence
I am looking for a candidate who seeks to get the United States off of foreign oil. Our dependence of foreign oil has caused us to be depended on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia spreads the most intolerant form of Islam around the world. Energy independence is a national security issue. I am looking for a candidate who supports policies that will help the United States move closer to energy independence. This includes drilling for oil, supporting nuclear energy, supporting coal as well as supporting alternative energy.
Border Security
I am looking for candidates who view are weak border security as a serious problem. Border security is a national security issue. If an illegal immigrant looking for work can cross the border so can a terrorist.
Is all of this too much to ask for? Maybe. I hope that there will be more than one candidate to meet my qualifications. Then I would have some additional things I can look at. I suspect that I might have to choose between which candidate is least crappy. But hopefully not.
I came up with a list that I am going to use to help me decide who the best presidential candidate will be. This list can change as I think of other important issues, it should not be considered as a legally binding contract. The list is as follows:
Republican
I am only looking at candidates who run as Republicans. Often times I agree with candidates who run in third parties such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party, but I live in the world of reality. It would not be a good thing for these third parties to become stronger to compete with the Republican Party. If we were to live in a three party system with the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Democrat Party, the Democrats would have the advantage. There is no reason why any serious conservative candidate should not run as a Republican.
Against Partial Birth Abortion
I view any candidate who would support this practice as having a lack of morals. I will not vote for any person who believes that it should be legal to halfhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif way deliver a baby so that it’s legs are out of the mother, then have a “doctor” puncture the babies skull and suck its brains out. High standards indeed. Of course it doesn’t need to be mentioned that I will not support any candidate who thinks it should be legal to kill the baby after birth. Of course no mainstream politician could take such an obviously evil position.
Economic Responsibility
I am opposed to the big spenders, those who take the position that we should spend more money than we have. This includes any person who supported the Obama stimulus bill. I will not vote for any supporters of corporate welfare. Those who make taxpayers pay to fix the mistakes made by private businesses. Businesses need to be free to fail. “Too big to fail” is repeatedly justified for bailing out different companies. I will not vote for supporters of bailouts of companies, banks, or states. I am looking for candidates who support a balanced budget amendment or have some other long term solution to our economic problems. I am looking for candidates who are willing to make the tough decisions regarding entitlement reform.
Supports 10th Amendment
I am looking for candidates who support the entire Constitution, but my mahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifin focus is on the 10th Amendment. This is because this is the most neglected Amendment of the Constitution. It has almost no supporters in all of Congress. The 10th Amendment is as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This means if it’s not in the Constitution, it is left to the states or the people. It’s pretty straight forward.
Foreign Policy
I am looking for candidates who support using all of the military effort that is necessary to win the war in Afghanistan. This means I want a candidate who supports fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. I want to see a candidate that understands counterinsurgency strategy. There is no purpose in defeating the jihadists in Afghanistan if they just take over the government when we leave. I want a candidate who supports actively fighting jihadists abroad. I am looking for someone who understands that the fight against the jihadists is more than a simple law enforcement matter, it is war. This is a war that takes place wherever the jihadists are. If they are Pakistan we fight them there, if they are in Yemen we fight them there. We should support the actions of government’s that are fighting the jihadists. When necessary we should use drone attacks or other means to kill the jihadists. I want a candidate who is willing to accurately describe our enemy. Who isn’t afraid to say “jihadist” or “Islamic extremist.” Our politically correct culture has prevented many people from getting an accurate understanding of our enemies.
Energy Independence
I am looking for a candidate who seeks to get the United States off of foreign oil. Our dependence of foreign oil has caused us to be depended on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia spreads the most intolerant form of Islam around the world. Energy independence is a national security issue. I am looking for a candidate who supports policies that will help the United States move closer to energy independence. This includes drilling for oil, supporting nuclear energy, supporting coal as well as supporting alternative energy.
Border Security
I am looking for candidates who view are weak border security as a serious problem. Border security is a national security issue. If an illegal immigrant looking for work can cross the border so can a terrorist.
Is all of this too much to ask for? Maybe. I hope that there will be more than one candidate to meet my qualifications. Then I would have some additional things I can look at. I suspect that I might have to choose between which candidate is least crappy. But hopefully not.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
"A Pretty Dirty Trick"
That was what Johnny Anderson, my state house rep., called a $10 billion federal aid package to help states with education.
Where that money is going to come from is anyone's guess.
Only two weeks after the voters had clearly told politicians to stop spending so much money, Utah legislators decided to accept the $101 million dollars from the feds anyway.
Their reasoning was that they had to do it. The feds forced them to... just like my little sister used to "force" me to hit her by doing something annoying.
The way the feds wrote the law, if the individual state legislatures were to reject the funding, the Department of Education could still give the money directly to the school districts.
The Republicans are all upset that if they reject the money, the districts will still get it and then they (the legislature) won't be able to say what happens with the money.
Hey Republicans -- Yes, it sucks that you won't be able to get your grubby little mitts on this money if you don't "hold your nose and accept it". And yes, the current clowns we have in Washington right now are trying to bankrupt this country. And yes, Mr. Anderson, it was a "dirty trick".
So why didn't you just reject the money? Who cares if it's still going to get spent? At least you did what the people of Utah elected you to do. You could have at least had some moral high ground. If you just accept the money, what is the difference between you guys and the Democrats?
This is another example of why I think fiscal conservatism is dying. People like to talk about the government being more careful with money... as long as they still get all those cool entitlements from the feds.
Want more proof? How could a write in candidate win a Senate race in Alaska? Because voters know she'll bring home the bacon. To many voters, fiscal conservatism sounds good until it effects them.
Hopefully I'm wrong. There may come a point where people really do want to scale back spending... hopefully that happens before we're forced to.
Where that money is going to come from is anyone's guess.
Only two weeks after the voters had clearly told politicians to stop spending so much money, Utah legislators decided to accept the $101 million dollars from the feds anyway.
Their reasoning was that they had to do it. The feds forced them to... just like my little sister used to "force" me to hit her by doing something annoying.
The way the feds wrote the law, if the individual state legislatures were to reject the funding, the Department of Education could still give the money directly to the school districts.
The Republicans are all upset that if they reject the money, the districts will still get it and then they (the legislature) won't be able to say what happens with the money.
Hey Republicans -- Yes, it sucks that you won't be able to get your grubby little mitts on this money if you don't "hold your nose and accept it". And yes, the current clowns we have in Washington right now are trying to bankrupt this country. And yes, Mr. Anderson, it was a "dirty trick".
So why didn't you just reject the money? Who cares if it's still going to get spent? At least you did what the people of Utah elected you to do. You could have at least had some moral high ground. If you just accept the money, what is the difference between you guys and the Democrats?
This is another example of why I think fiscal conservatism is dying. People like to talk about the government being more careful with money... as long as they still get all those cool entitlements from the feds.
Want more proof? How could a write in candidate win a Senate race in Alaska? Because voters know she'll bring home the bacon. To many voters, fiscal conservatism sounds good until it effects them.
Hopefully I'm wrong. There may come a point where people really do want to scale back spending... hopefully that happens before we're forced to.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Wikileaks helps Taliban to murder Afghans
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange does not care how many innocent people die in his efforts to help the United States lose in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that the Taliban will use this information to crack down on Afghans who ally with the United States. The recent leaked documents contained hundreds of names of Afghan informants. Read about it here. Whoever leaked this information needs to be found out and arrested for treason. Nothing could be more destructive to our counterinsurgency efforts than having any Afghan who sides with the United States exposed to the Taliban by people who work in the government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
