Friday, December 16, 2011

Who gets my GOP nod?

If you are reading this, you have some reason for wondering who I plan to vote for in the AZ GOP primary. Well, if you are looking for an answer and a reason, you will be disappointed. This article is more about where I stand in my personal vetting process.

Following the race, I liked a few candidates right out of the gate. I liked Cain, Gingrich, Perry, and Paul. However, the race was early on, and I made a concerted effort to remain open-minded. Why? I want to give my nod to the one person who fits a short list of criteria:

1. Can beat the socialist Herr Ruler who is currently a massive disgrace to that esteemed office.
2. Will cut economy & employment killing taxes, something VITAL to restoring the US economy.
3. Will work with congress to actually pass a proper and balanced budget ON TIME!
4. Strong on National Security, Veterans' Benefits, Keeping military paid, fed, equipped, trained, and ready
5. Pays attention to intelligence, prepared to act instead of REACT, including good foreign/international relations in trade, diplomacy, as well as military action when needed.
6. Get rid of executive branch regulations (they are NOT laws, but are treated like them) that drive up capital costs and restrict the very freedoms our Constitution guarantees. These include EPA and FDA regulations, etc.
7. Repeal Obamacare. It is designed to destroy the medical INDUSTRY and make it a state-controlled NATIONAL SOCIALIST activity.

2, 3, 6, &7 combine to reduce unemployment, increase US Prosperity, and increase free-market capitalism.
4&5 include securing our borders against invaders (illegal aliens).

I have yet to make up my mind. Cain dropped out of the race. He was a champion of tax reform and probably the best on the list to turn around the economy. That leaves me even more undecided.

Newt's debate answers continue to impress me. They should. he has a vast knowledge of history and can relate lessons from the past to today. We call that ability "wisdom". I will admit, some of the allegations coming out of the housing crisis do concern me. So, he has far from clinched my nod.

Bachman turned me off early in the race. I am a huge supporter of the First Amendment, especially the Freedom of Religion clauses. She tends to push her religion as "correct" and shove it down my throat. She's backed off on that quite a bit. I am not "Pro-Life". I am anti-abortion as a means of birth control. I do find it disgusting that people can just procreate irresponsibly and not have to face the consequences. However, I will say that I am a man. If the kid didn't come from my sperm, I have no right to tell the woman what to choose. I just have the right to NOT agree with her choice. But if an 18 year old college student is drugged and raped at a frat party, she didn't choose anything in the resulting pregnancy. So, she has the right to terminate if so wishes. There ARE other options I'd prefer she chose. However, like not agreeing with somebody's spoken words, I do respect her right to make the choice in that situation.

One huge not on this is that I STRONGLY believe that US Taxpayers should not suffer that woman's choice, be it through welfare programs OR Planned Parenthood. Let them pay for their own decisions like I have to pay for mine. (THAT is equality).

The power of choice is very important to me in all walks of life. I also believe that one's choice is also the choice to accept the consequences, good or bad, and to be accountable and responsible for them.

But Bachman has given some answers and statements that I do agree with, recently.

I can go on an on. Perry impresses me with his immigration stand. I live in Arizona. We have a serious illegal immigration problem here. It is not a "victimless crime". We have people getting killed by illegals here. We have sex-slaves being smuggled who are criminally abused and forced into addiction.

In last night's debate, even Mitt "Mittens" Romney gave a few answers I liked. His track record in Massachusetts still leaves me highly skeptical of him. I don't need to rehash Romneycare, tax hikes, 2nd Amendment violations, or Court Appointments. They are all over the net.

Even Huntsman and Santorum haven't completely lost me. I just don't think either has the pull to beat Obama. However, if any of the above get the nod, I am comfortable with them as POTUS. Each has strengths this country is in dire need of in a leader right now.

And here comes the kicker. No, I have not yet mentioned former Libertarian Ron Paul .

If you look at some of my statements, you'll see quite a bit of a "Libertarian Lean" in my views. I am conservative, yes. I also am a card-carrying libertarian. "So what about Paul"?

Ron Paul might be a doctor, but he is ignorant on key things I find important.

The jury was out on him until the last few days. Let me tell you what ended any chance Paul had in getting my nod.

First, when I stated I wanted the candidates own words and actions on issues to make up my mind, and not campaigning by "supporters" I started getting harassed by Ron Paul's goons. I am sure this blog is going to bring more of them out of the woodwork. All they will do is add nails to the coffin containing Ron Paul's credibility with me. It is being down a run at the top of the 9th and putting in your 3rd string bench warmers and nose pickers to try to win the game.

Paul's supporters started harassing me right after I told them that doing so will turn me off of their candidate. I guess they, like their candid-dunce, are just to moronic to listen.

To top it off, they argued things that I already know to be untrue. They tried to state that Active Military support Ron Paul more than any other candidate. Ok, that's nice. However, I recently retired. I have HUNDREDS of friends who are still active duty. NONE of them admitted to supporting Ron Paul. So, my own experience is against their claims.

They presented numbers. That's nice. They overlooked federal laws such as the UCMJ in regards to political activity done by US Service Members. They CANNOT campaign while representing the military. If they say "I'm SPC Snuffy of the US Army and I support..." they are subject to a Court Martial.

Can they make campaign contributions? Yes, anonymously. If those contributions are less than $200, they do not have to state their employer. Paul's faithful minions try to say all contributions need to contain both employer and SS#. That one right there killed their argument. The Privacy Act of 1974 makes it illegal for campaigns to ask for that information. If they are collecting that data and using it to track military donors, they have broken federal law.

To top it off, Military Officers are prohibited from publicly claiming support for any candidate. Only enlisted members can do so, and under conditions that they make sure they STRONGLY evade doing so "as a Soldier".

Not quitting after being told several times to stop harassing me, they started sending me videos of alleged US Service members endorsing Paul. Not only is it illegal for them to do so, most of those on the videos have facial hair and haircuts that are grossly out of regulation. I saw more violations of AR 670-1 in those adds than I saw in all of the "Occupy" videos. If these actors are Active Duty military, I am a Hare Krishna. I also want to have a chat with their NCOs about enforcing the regulations and standards.

All of that wasn't enough to put me off. The resurgence of anti-Semitic comments Ron Paul has made (and continues to make) throughout his career puts me off further. In case you haven't noticed, I have strong religious beliefs that, for all intents and purposes, are Jewish in nature. I converted in 1991. My beliefs have evolved and are mine. But I hold most Jewish tenets close to my heart. So, for all intents and purposes, Ron Paul is prejudiced against my religion.

Of course, Dr. Paul had a perfect excuse lined up when confronted about the articles published by his paper and in his name. "I didn't read them and I didn't know. It was the editors' jobs." However, when you look for the editor's name, you find Dr. Paul listed as the editor. Perhaps he forgot he authorized the pieces. If that is the case, he's senile and should not be in office. However, let's give him the benefit of  the doubt and assume that somebody did the actual editing and approval for him. In that case, he is using the same defense that AG Eric Holder attempted to use in his Fast and Furious defense. "I didn't know" does not work for something that needed his signature for approval. That level of incompetence and negligence is not something that we need in the White House. We have that with Obama, Holder, Napolitano, etc, etc, etc. That is the type of dangerous administration we would rather vote OUT of office. 

Below is a record of the final nail in the coffin of Ron Paul's chances of getting my vote. It comes from the last Iowa GOP Primary debate. If you take the almost 20 minutes to watch the video in the link, you'll see where I saw the following statements that just destroyed any credibility Paul ever had (time hacks are approximate):

00:35 Paul grossly dodges the question. All candidates do this. But, it was a start to his fall.

02:00 He claims he will "cut the budget". What he doesn't say is his intended agenda to cut military spending and taking care of veterans as part of these cuts. His proposed cuts to defense spending will gut our military more than Carter did in the '70s. We all know how that turned out, right? Can I remind you of the failed rescue attempt into Iran? It failed because of lack of funding leading to an inability to properly maintain equipment.

03:00 Paul starts making up his own definitions. Government and Defense contractors are PRIVATE businesses that sign business contracts with the USGOV as a client. They are still private-sector jobs. If they weren't, they'd have to hire through instead of private recruitment sites. Paul also ignored the key economic variable in macro-economics known as the "G" variable. This is government spending into the private sector economy for goods and services industries (in our country, these are owned by citizens) that the government is not capable of producing/providing to itself. Of course, he had to say his favorite word "bwubbwel". every time he says that, I want to hand him a bottle of liquid dish soap mixed with propylene glycol and tell him to go play in the back yard.

05:00 He tap dances his answer attempting to dodge and answer simultaneously. Here he proved he is anything but a martial artist. In any case, he was asked about "earmarks". He stated he votes against them. Then he says they are essential to take care of his constituents. Then he says they are necessary to keep the funds where they belong. Then he says they are evil. Then he says they shouldn't exist. then he defends adding them and voting for them if they go back to his state. Then he says "earmarks bad, if me president they no longer exist bcause me in backyard chasing bwubbwes" (paraphrased snark). Nice job begging the question with circular logic there. I liken this to Kant's failed attempt to argue against reason, values, and ethics.

07:30 He gives an answer that I interpreted as simply "As president, I won't be a leader. I'll let everybody roll over me because I want people to see me as their FAVORITE Weird Uncle who is chasing bwubbwes in the backyard". We need a strong leader. We had a socialist tyrant in charge for the last 3 years. we don't need Carter 2.0.

08:30 "Congress shouldn't have the power to subpena or impeach bad judges." He's been a US Representative for how long? Has he bothered to read the US Constitution? Guess what, THAT POWER IS IN THERE!

10:00 His answer can be boiled down to  the following: "I don't pay attention to intelligence. I will bow to what the UN claims on everything." He also slammed concerns over Iran as being "another Iraq". I hate to tell the ignorant buffoon, but I know the Intel leading up to Iraq. Iraq was NOT a bad move, at all. It was a smart one. The poor decision was pulling out too soon.

11:00 He referred to OIF as "useless". He is ignorant of the intelligence gathered prior to and during OIF. He has no clue about what happened over there. He claimed over 1,000,000 Iraqis were killed at US hands. That is blatantly false. His statement here boiled down to a personal insult against all the US Service Members who served, fought, and bled over there. It is a GRAVE insult to those fallen heroes who died over there. At this point he lost me completely. He insulted the heroic memories of my brothers and sisters in arms.

12:50 Paul demonstrates a lack of strategic and tactical analysis on Arabian/Persian Gulf states. He fails to understand that Iran's closing of the Strait of Hormuz does not affect just the US. It affects all of Europe. It affects our allies in Turkey, Jordan and Israel. It will harm developing African countries. It will destabilize the region causing global ripples.

14:30 I have to give some serious credit here to Rep. Michelle Bachman (MN-6) at this point. She calls Paul out on his statements and nails why Paul's statements are so disturbing. Her summary of the international relations and strategic nightmare such a policy creates is nothing less than a wonderful revelation of the extreme madness in Ron Paul.

15:15 Paul again shows his myopic views on the international scale. He makes a claim that terrorism hasn't touched "Switzerland or Sweden". Has he even bothered to watch the news over the past 20 years? How about the past 6 months? Rep. Paul then admitted he doesn't read intelligence reports and analysis. He countered Bachman's mention of an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear program. His rebuttal "It wasn't a UN report". There you go again, Paul, saying you bend your knee to the "One World Order" and claim you will give the UN sovereignty over OUR Country.

Ron Paul's Iowa Debate Dec 15, 2011 Highlight Reel

I didn't get the exact time of the remark, but Rep. Ron Paul also made a statement about his having been drafted in 1962. For me, this explains his dislike of our heroic service members. He is still butt-sore that, in the 60s, our military drafted him. Well, we haven't used the Selective Service to draft people into service since 1973. All the people currently in the military voluntarily signed their contracts with the USGOV. They deserve the benefits and pay they have earned, and more. So, here we are, 50 years and numerous changes in military recruitment, manning, and structure later, and he holds it against those who forced him to serve. Maybe he should turn his aggression towards Kennedy, who was POTUS at the time, and not towards GWB. GWB asked for volunteers who went bravely into the breach and fought a tough and heroic war to rid the world of a genocidal tyrant. And Saddam's political party was the Ba'ath Party. The Ba'ath party is a party rooted in National Socialism. They supported Hamas and Al Q'aeda. I am PROUD to have served four (4) tours in Iraq supporting that effort. Paul insults that pride.

Ron Paul, the OIF veteran, Soldier Hard, has a Message for you:
"Shame on Ya'll"

To go along with Paul's disdain for the military, he backs traitors ( make that alleged traitors) such as PFC Manning. Manning was one of my AIT students. He was a dirtbag then. I didn't know nor did I care his sexual orientation at the time. What mattered was he failed to follow orders and security protocols while he was in school. And what did he do after graduating and going off to do real MI work? He violated laws and orders put in place to safeguard US Intelligence assets and Diplomatic missions. He (allegedly) sold those classified documents to WikiLeaks, for money, and all but shut-down several intelligence and diplomatic missions. Now, Ron Paul is all about diplomacy over military action, supposedly. Considering his ignorance on international events, I doubt it. A true diplomacy over military advocate should be even more on top of world events than a warmonger. But I digress. Paul has time and again made statements that he sees this traitor (alleged) as a "hero".  If that is the type of person Ron Paul sees as a Hero, he is not the sort of person who should be Commander-in-Chief of the military AND head Diplomat for the US. (Yes, boys and girls, the POTUS is a higher ranking diplomat than the Secretary of State who he appoints). I'll  bet Mr. Bwubbwes secretly praises Benedict Arnold as a hero.

Somebody give him a bottle of "bwubbwes" and a wand. let him and his cronies go play in the backyard. He doesn't belong in the Oval Office.

My jury is still out on the rest of the candidates.

Other readings on Ron Paul's racism and downright insane views on National Security and National Defense: