Pages Navigation Menu

Principled Leadership

Posted by on Nov 9, 2012 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

We do not believe America should equate a disappointing loss in the Presidential campaign to a rejection of conservative ideals.  The election results are certainly not a rejection of the GOP, since they still retain a majority in the House.  Much ink will be spilled second-guessing the Romney-Ryan campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-way-forward/2012/11/08/6592e302-29d8-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html?hpid=z2

At the end of the day, we must realize that the conservative base is guilty of allowing the GOP primary to carry on too long.  That greatly benefitted the Obama campaign and allowed them to define Mitt Romney in a very unflattering and unfair light.  Instead of the election being decided upon competing ideas, the GOP allowed the Democrats to put personal economic success on trial.  Any candidate “guilty” of succeeding in business or parallel pursuit was smeared by their opponent and prevented from keeping the topic of discussion on ideas.

The GOP doesn’t need to support big government, higher taxes, legalization of illicit drugs, gay marriage and abortion to win another national election.  That’s simply a distortion generated by the left to perpetuate their ideals.  Those ideals are not what America great, and will not get America back on track economically.  Those ideals will not resolve the ideological divide that separates those that earn their income from businesses versus those that earn their income from the government.    Let’s get back to our root principles of smaller government, personal responsibility and entrepreneurship.  Those principles were not rejected by the American people on November 6, 2012.  Rather, they were concealed by a cunning campaign and a complicit media.

 

 

Read More

Afghanistan and U.S. Security

Posted by on Oct 12, 2012 in Afghanistan | 0 comments

Education for All

Kudos to the Vice Presidential candidates for debating substance instead of tag lines.  The question was presented as to when U.S. troops should be committed to various international conflicts.  Congressman Ryan aptly stated that troops should only be committed when U.S. Security interests are directly implicated.  We agree.

However, when considering Afghanistan, for instance, one must consider the nature and extent of U.S. security interests to determine whether it makes sense to set an arbitrary deadline to remove U.S. troops.  Congressman Ryan made a great point that setting a hard date on the calendar for withdrawal can and will likely motivate our enemies to wait us out.  But doesn’t it also embolden our enemies to seek to intimidate the citizens of the country we have liberated?  The photo above seems to depict a little girl seeking an education.  A basic right in America, but not in other parts of the world.

Allowing all citizens access to education regardless of gender can only help to foster a stable government.  Perhaps not the preferred government of our enemies, but a more stable one, nonetheless.  Our men and women in uniform have made tremendous and heart-wrending sacrifices to liberate the people of Afghanistan.  We owe it to them and the people of Afghanistan to avoid the prospect of emboldening our enemies with an arbitrary withdrawal date.  We also owe the same people a commitment to leaving a solid legacy behind when withdrawal makes sense and security can tenably be handled by the Afghan government.

Read More

Missile Defense Contradiction

Posted by on May 21, 2010 in Congress, Contradiction, Israel, Missile Defense, President Bush, President Obama | 0 comments

I just want to be certain of the U.S. Congress and President’s position on missile defense.  They seem to believe that such a defense system is unworkable, destabilizing and too expensive.  Thus,we were more than willing to give up George W’s hard won defense system in exchange for a mutual reduction in nuclear arms with Russia.

On the other hand, missile defense is entirely workable and cost effective for Israel.  So we are willing to give them $205 million to develop a shield for them.  How is such logic reconciled?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-congress-gives-obama-okay-to-fund-israel-rocket-defense-1.291339

Israel, as well as the U.S., is entitled to develop whatever defense system is necessary to prevent or deter hostile action in a dangerous world.  Why are we in the U.S. depriving ourselves from a workable technology that can save lives?  Because of cost?  That has never stopped Congress before.  Because of some idealistic and academic notion of collective security trumping any need for self reliance?  Maybe.  Or is it also because of some complex problem solving response influenced by a latent socialistic ideal or communist romanticism taught by educators at elite universities when our world leaders were more susceptible to academic persuasion?

Read More

Justice and Temperament

Posted by on Dec 4, 2009 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

During now Justice Sotomayor’s hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, there were questions about her temperament. Some said Justice Sotomayor could be imperious and demanding, bordering on rude to counsel before her on the Court of Appeals.

Her attempts to interrupt Justice Ginsburg during oral argument on a case involving discharge of student loans in bankruptcy are apt. See the attached article I received from the ABA. Hopefully there were some in-chamber discussions with the Justice afterward, to work on the finer points of decorum.

http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/article/a_somewhat_tense_moment_as_justices_consider_discharge_of_student_loans

Read More

Missile Defense – A conservative response to Nuclear Proliferation

Posted by on Sep 30, 2009 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

Mitt Romney authored a great essay on why it was a mistake for the Obama Administration to walk away from the Missile Shield Program.  Not only have we alienated our staunch allies in Europe, who took a lot of heat over agreeing to host the shield, but we are sending the wrong message about our commitments to security in general.  Is there any other manner to combat illegal nuclear programs, than to both work through diplomatic channels to stop the programs, while developing a shield to protect from the threat?  We are simply naive, and wrong, to compromise our security for the sake of an ill-fated experiment of appeasement.  There are simply too many lives at stake to take such a gamble.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzAxYWRiNjI0ZDQxODBjOWNhNjZjZjc5NDI2MTEyMTc=

Read More