Remember . . .

Remember the Twin Towers in New York City . . .

Remember the fallen from the Pentagon . . .

Remember those who fought back above a quiet field in Pennsylvania . . .

Remember those left behind in Benghazi . . .

Remember . . .

The Tenth Anniversary of a Heinous Attack. What's Missing?

9/11 is fast approaching. It's hard to believe that ten years have passed since some unidentified group of people did something pretty bad. But we should forget the bad stuff and trade in our SUVs for a hybrid the size of a toaster oven.

Ludicrous? Yup. But that is the gist of the Obama Administration's plans for commemorating the tenth anniversary of the attacks on our nation. The word is out. Don't mention Al Quaeda. Focus on moving forward with the left wing agenda and emphasize the unity felt on the days after the attacks.

Not only is this ludicrous, but highly disrespectful. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt commemorating Pearl Harbor Day 1944 and leaving out the Japanese. Obama may have forgotten that America is still fighting. The enemy still wants to kills our soldiers and attack our cities if he can. How do you avoid mentioning the enemy on the day that he started the war? Where does this leave our soldiers in the national consciousness?

Obama wants to emphasize and bring back an unnatural unity. Unity such as in the days after 9/11 only happens after events of great trauma. None of our national wars received unconditional and unified support. Peaceful division is a symptom of a healthy society, not a sick one. Obama wants us all to unify behind his agenda. We need to stand up and remember 9/11 for what it was, a heinous and cowardly attack because of our liberty, not a "national day of service" as Obama prefers. Remember and cherish our freedoms. Remember those who sacrificed, both on that day and since. Some chose to fight for their country, others just went to work. This is why we remember 9/11.

So the Terrorists Won After All

Just after 9/11, it was bandied about that if we allowed substantial changes to our national character as a result of crisis, it meant the terrorists were winning. Who ever would have thought we'd see the following:

The government is no longer our obedient servant. Now General Motors is the government's obedient servant.

Those who interpreted the law so that we could compete on the front lines of terrorism now possibly face worse treatment than all but one of the Confederate States of America military and political officials who actually took arms against the United States. They do not get a thank you for preventing additional attacks, they get threatened with prosecution.

Law abiding gun owners are told that the freedoms they believe in somehow give Mexican drug lords 90% of their guns. I am not sure how they got all those Russian, Chinese, and Czech arms from American dealers.

We'd rather form government labor battalions than reduce taxes so that employers can hire more people.

The British head of government and head of state are treated with crass disrespect while anti-American dictators get the "best buddy" treatment.

We regard captured terrorists as civilians and returning solider-heroes as terrorists.

Republicans are, for the most part, also mostly terrorists for standing behind our Founding ideals.

This is a government that plays hardball with corporations, but swoons with affection towards the brutal Hugo Chavez. The world is turned upside down. A few years ago we were prosperous and strong, now we mollycoddle enemies and trample the free market.

Two years cannot go past soon enough. We need to get our America back.

Ron Paul Redux

In my last commentary on Ron Paul, I was twice invited by "anonymous" to read Ron Paul's site. They apparently thought I had not done this in the first place. I did go back and look again at his positions and came away with the same feeling I had before. Some of his ideas are solid, but a few would put the country in danger.

Smaller government that puts more freedom into the hands of the people represents a positive good. We definitely need to roll back liberal cuts in property and education rights. As far as domestic ideas on individual rights are concerned, Ron Paul has good ideas. Fortunately Fred Thompson and other Republican candidates share Paul's desire to protect property rights, gun rights, and the right of every unborn child to live.

Paul's foreign policy ideas are, however, disastrous. They run absolutely contrary to the actions of the Founding Fathers when they assumed the presidency. Paul believes that military force ought not be used without a direct declaration of war by Congress. Again, the Founders themselves did not believe that this was reasonable. George Washington launched three wars against the Shawnee Nation and after his presidency supported an undeclared war against France launched by John Adams. Washington's Farewell Address warning about entanglements referred to alliances with Europe and most likely was meant to be a short term warning. Washington's actions throughout his life reflected those of a man who was flexible and adaptive to changing situations, never dogmatic.

Congress did not declare war against the Barbary Pirates in either the Jefferson or Madison administration. Each one of these men supported military action without the direct assent of Congress. Madison and Washington wielded powerful influences over the creation of the Constitution. If any men understood what it meant, these would be two. Jefferson advocated a very limited role for the chief executive, but still sent the Navy and Marines into action to protect US interests.

Paul's position on Iraq has no basis in reality and shows an appalling lack of any kind of sense about geopolitics. References to creating more enemies simply do not hold water and do not reflect the shifting and complex nature of society and politics in the Middle East. National Security means that the US needs to be involved in regions throughout the world. If a grease fire started in your kitchen, would you put it out immediately, or wait until your entire home was threatened? "No win police actions" and other uses of the military that Paul disdains head off more dangerous conflicts down the road. If we had the same foreign policy in the 1930s that we do now, millions of lives and trillions of dollars would have been saved. Paul has forgotten the lessons of 9/11, much less Munich and Pearl Harbor.

As far as NAFTA is concerned, neither the Canadians nor the United States want a European Union style system. Canada very jealously guards its cultural and political independence from possible US encroachment. That being said the EU represents a powerful economic competitor as a unified economic zone. Paul points out that France has blocked sales of US products. So be it. The best way to react is through a coordinated response with our primary trade partners. The European Union already shows signs of strain due to its increasingly socialistic regulations and is no model to follow. When BMW shows that Spartanburg, South Carolina is a better place to manufacture cars that their own country, it demonstrates that our system works. That being said, it is right to remain vigilant to make sure that Eurosocialism does not creep into our methods of doing business.

When it is all said and done, Paul is an idealist. Ideally the world's nations conduct their affairs reasonably, each nation peacefully advancing their own interest. In such a world Paul's ideas on foreign policy would be fine. The world has never reflected such a state. In both warfare and trade, the rest of the world does not play by the rules we would like to follow. We must follow a variety of strategies to protect our economic and political interests. Paul's ideas do not reflect reality. It is hard to tell what is more of a threat, Paul's dangerously ineffective idealism, or Obama's absolute vacancy. Likely we will never find out in either case.

*************************************************************************

By the way, some over the years have bemoaned the fact that big money often exercises influence over politics. This is especially true in West Virginia. For the most part, convention delegates whether committed or uncommitted paid their own fees and travel expenses. The exception lies in Paul's delegates. As was reported by Gary Abernathy and Vic Sprouse, Ron Paul's campaign paid many of the delegate fees. Some of the travel expenses were also covered for Paul delegates. Imagine that, the outsider candidate trying to purchase a convention victory in West Virginia. They did nothing illegal, but it does explain why they hold a lead in "committeds." Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and others could not afford to send a bunch of folks on a paid junket to Charleston.

Paul's campaign may be one of outsiders, but they learned some inside tricks in West Virginia politics fairly quickly.