When Checks and Balances Fail

I feel that the United States is currently more ideologically divided than at any other time in history, including the civil war.  The only thing that has prevented the country from coming apart to date as it did in 1860 is that the division is not drawn across geographic lines.  Nevertheless, the trajectory that the nation is on now will result in violence if it’s not corrected.

For the last three years a very well funded and completely unqualified president has systematically dismantled the constitutional system of checks and balances, unhindered by an out of control congress that abdicated its power to control the Executive long ago.  Today the final protection that the framers of the constitution devised to protect the citizens of the country from the government abdicated its responsibility to check and balance, in essence stating that the court had no responsibility to protect the citizens from the consequences of their election-day decisions.

Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts is merely playing a dangerous game, thinking that if the citizenry want socialism, they should get it, good and hard.  By pulling the political pendulum ever farther to the left, perhaps he thinks the reaction to the right will be correspondingly more pronounced.  This is a stupid way to think, and if this was his motivation, then Chief Justice Roberts should be impeached for playing politics.  The Supreme Court sets precedent, and this decision has set a very dangerous precedent for future courts to deal with.

The system was set up as three separate branches, under the theory that if any one branch would do its constitutionally mandated job it would be able to prevent the other two from running amuck. The congress has failed the American people.  The President has failed to reign in the excesses of congress, and the Court -  the final bulwark against tyranny - has failed to restore sanity to the government’s relation to the governed by hiding behind legal fictions and the twisting of meanings.

Conservative Americans are a law abiding group of people, and will always try to resolve things within the framework of the law.  This has been the strength of America, which has witnessed 43 peaceful changes of power, even when the handoff has been between diametrically opposed ideologies.  The rule of law prevails.

The current administration pays lip service to the law, and actively seeks to subvert that law to its own political ends by  a variety of methods.  It actively opposes common sense election law enforcement, such as voter ID laws and the purging of ineligible voters from the election rolls.  It encourages illegal immigration through inaction – and in some cases active opposition to attempts to enforce immigration law, the theory being that an illegal immigrant’s vote is as good as any other. Overt voting place intimidation, voting multiple times, dead people voting, “discovered” ballot boxes in the trunks of election officials are all documented tactics of the left to steal elections. This government routinely violates the constitutional rights of the citizens, subjecting them to illegal searches and seizures, harassment, and illegal detention without trial, all sanctioned by unconstitutional legislation from an out of control congress and a court that looks the other way when called upon to do its duty.

The next election in November will determine the fate of this nation. Only a Republican House, Senate and President have a chance of steering this ship off the rocks.  The orderly transfer of power in this election is the last peaceful bulwark the people of this nation have against tyranny. 

Should this election not result in the retirement of the leftist activists that control the Senate and the white House, the American conservative movement will be left with only one remaining tool with which to control an out of control government, as outlined in our Declaration of Independence:

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

To that end we take further wisdom from Mr. Jefferson:

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

This is the variable in the equation that the liberals underestimate: The conservative movement is very law abiding, as long as there is a law to abide by.  But when it becomes plain that the people are not being ruled by laws, but by the capricious whims of a government that does not answer to the People, and does not govern by the consent of the governed, the conservatives are not above taking up arms and abolishing that government.  In the last two years, private American citizens have bought more personal firearms and ammunition than is necessary to arm the largest army in the world.  If we cannot control the government by peaceful, lawful means, we will control it nevertheless.  The people of the United states will not be governed without their consent, and that consent is rapidly eroding.

I tremble for my country.  Civil wars are the most destructive, deadly conflicts imaginable, and I fear we are closer than anyone cares to admit to just that. 

Vote in November.  Make your voice heard, and be very watchful against election fraud. This is our last chance at a peaceful way to roll back tyranny. After November it will be too late to apologize.

Is Muhammad in the Bible?

In any debate between Muslims and Christians the subject of Muhammad in the Christian scripture will inevitably come up. Muslims contend that Muhammad is mentioned in several places in scripture. Christians maintain that Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible, and is therefore a null. Both sides are incorrect.

The Islamic apologist normally bases his assertion on several passages: The Song of Solomon 5:16, Deuteronomy 18:18 and John 14:16. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas also makes several mentions of Muhammad, but the overwhelming evidence is that this was a work of fiction, written much later than the canonical Gospels, probably after the Moorish conquest of Spain, and carries as much liturgical weight as your average Dan Brown novel.

There are several fundamental mistakes that Muslims make when referring to the Bible to support their arguments. The first is that Muslims themselves dismiss the Bible as corrupt. In their canon, the Bible simply cannot be authentic, because the Quran disagrees with it so egregiously. In this they violate the rule of authority of precedence in scripture, i.e. in the event of a contradiction, the earlier work is considered authoritative. This rule is not just broken by the Quran, it’s shattered into a myriad of pieces, thrown on the floor and trampled on and fed to the pigs. The Quran says in more than three dozen places that the Judeo-Christian scripture (identified as the “Torah” and the "injeel" or Gospel. Muhammad was unfamiliar with much of the Old Testament except for the Pentateuch, and knew nothing of the New Testament except for the Gospels) is to be read, respected and followed (Surahs 10:37, 10:94, 12:111, 21:7, 16:43, 53:33-37 , 87:17-19, just to name a few). Then it turns around and completely denies one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity, the crucifixion and by implication the resurrection of Jesus (4:157). There are many accounts of Biblical figures in the Quran that amount to mere flights of fantasy, Arabian folklore retold with Biblical figures in the leading roles, with absolutely no connection to the Bible.

A second mistake that Muslims make in quoting the Bible is to quote verses out of context. This is generally acceptable in the Quran, because for the most part Muhammad couldn’t hold onto a topic for more than a few verses anyway. There simply is no narrative context in the Quran to lend understanding to the reader. It has no narrative beginning or end, and it’s a coin toss whether a given verse will have any logical connection to another ten verses away.

The Song of Solomon

The Song of Solomon 5:16; “His mouth is full of sweetness. And he is wholly desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” In the original Hebrew, the word for “altogether lovely” (KJV) or “wholly desirable” (NASB77) is מַחמָד, or "machmad", which the Muslims feel is transliterated to “Muhammad.”

The first problem with this is literary. As used this is a predicate, describing the subject of the poem, which in this case is the voice of the bride describing her new husband. But the Muslims would have us believe it should be read as a proper noun, naming the subject, thus: “His mouth is full of sweetness. And he is Muhammad. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

This removes the intended meaning and awkwardly inserts a foreign name into a love poem without any introduction or frame of reference for the reader. It makes as little sense as saying “His mouth is full of sweetness. And he is Ralph. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

The second problem demonstrates the inherent silliness of the lengths Muslims will go to in order to claim a point. Arab names are commonly descriptive. Humam is “generous.” Nasim is “fresh air.” This pattern is repeated over and over. Muhammad means “praised,” and was not an uncommon name even in 7th century Arabia. Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages, with a great deal of common structures, phrases and similar sounds and words. Of course some of these predicate nouns will appear in Hebrew literature. Is it the Muslim position that any time that the Hebrew scripture uses a predicate noun that doubles as a proper name in Arabic that it’s actually referring to a person, and not the original meaning?

Deuteronomy

Muslims also like to claim that Deuteronomy 18:18 speaks of Muhammad: “I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.”

The Muslim discussion of this seeks to obfuscate the issue, with claims that Muhammad is more like Moses than was Jesus, who most Christians accept is the one to which this verse refers. This is irrelevant, because any similarity between Moses and Muhammad is completely negated by two glaring disqualifications.

The Muslim position is that Muhammad is supposedly descended from Ishmael, and therefore is a “brother” to the Israelites based on the Abrahamic connection. This is preposterous. Aside from Ishmael and Isaac themselves, the Ishmaelites are never referred to as brethren, nor are any of the other tribes that can trace Abrahamic descent, such as the Midianites. Joseph the son of Jacob was sold to Ishmaelites who took him to Egypt, and Ishmaelites are counted among the enemies of Israel in Psalm 83. The entire book of Deuteronomy is Moses’ farewell address to the Israelites, no one else, and should be interpreted in that context. An Ishmaelite is not an Israelite.

If Muslims are going to rely on scripture to support their claims, then they need to be careful about what that scripture says. Just a couple of verses after the verse that the Muslims are all heated up about, it says, ‘But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I refer you to the Quran, surah 53:19-20: Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza And Manat, the third, the other?

This verse refers to three of the Gods of the Meccan Pantheon, sister goddesses of Allah, and was “revealed” in response to a deal the Meccans offered Muhammad, where they would give him a cut of the proceeds from the ka’aba if he would dial down the monotheistic rhetoric a bit. When his faithful followers heard of this, they were incensed and called BS, which prompted the following verse to be revealed in 22:52: Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before you but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolishes that which Satan proposes. Then Allah establishes His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise;

Nice out, Muhammad, but by the definition given in Deuteronomy 18:20, you spoke a word in God’s name which he did not command you, and your life is therefore forfeit. Muhammad is no prophet of God.

The prophet Moses referred to is thought to be Jesus. It could just as easily been Elijah or John the Baptist, the two greatest prophets between Jesus and Moses. Peter quotes this verse verbatim in Acts 3, intimating that Jesus is the prophet. Jesus also stated quite clearly in Luke 16:16 that the last prophet was John the Baptist; after that the Kingdom of God is preached.

The Paraclete

Muslims claim that the Paraclete that John spoke of in 14:16 was no other than Muhammad: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter [or helper], that he may abide with you for ever;”

Taken in isolation, this is adequate proof for most Muslims. Unfortunately, there’s a little problem in the form of the Acts of the Apostles that gets in the way of this idea. Most Muslims are abysmally ignorant of the Acts of the Apostles, thinking that the New Testament consists entirely of the four Gospels.

The word for “comforter” or “helper” is the Greek “Paraclete.” John uses it in the same context a couple more times. In 15:26 he states, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me,” A key thing to know is that the word used for spirit here is “pneuma,” the very same word used throughout the New Testament to refer to the Holy Spirit.

The Pentecost story is one that Most Muslims are unfamiliar with. To the Christian, Pentecost is a feast day that rivals Easter or Christmas in importance. This event sets the tone for the rest of the Acts of the Apostles, where the early church was guided by the Holy Spirit. From Acts, Chapter 2:

And when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because they were each one hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and marveled, saying, “ Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? “And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs–we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?”

The Holy Spirit filled the faithful, and guided the early church.  It ensured that the traditions and written words were established according to God’s plan.  It was literally the manifestation of God in the hearts of the Faithful, and is understood by all to be the paraclete of whom Jesus spoke.

Muhammad, by contrast, is a self-proclaimed prophet from a tribe barely related to Israel, separated by a thousand miles and five hundred years. He preached a Quran that in many respects was a hollow, meaningless imitation of the Judeo-Christian scripture, when it did not directly contradict that scripture. The “help” and “comfort” he gave the followers of Jesus was subjugation, slavery, forced conversion, death and perpetual warfare.  Like most everything else in Islam, it only makes sense if you drink the Kool-aid.  It has no redeeming argument to attract anyone but the ignorant.

But this is not to say that Muhammad has no role in the Bible, or that Islam isn’t mentioned.  Islam plays a prominent role in many of the prophecies and Muhammad is referred to almost explicitly in Isaiah.

To understand this, you have to first be familiar with Muhammad’s first encounter with “Gabriel.” In the Bukhari hadith vol 1, Book 1, number 3, Aisha tells us about Muhammad’s recounting of the event:

"The angel caught me  (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could  not bear it any more. He then released me and  again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not  know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me  again and pressed me a second time till I could  not bear it any more. He then released me and  again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do  not know how to read (or what shall I read)?'  Thereupon he caught me for the third time and  pressed me, and then released me and said,  'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created  (all that exists) has created man from a clot.  Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous."

Yeah, that makes sense.  The omniscient Author of the universe brutalizes one of his terrified creations to make him do something he’s patently incapable of doing.  Muhammad quite correctly thought he was demon-possessed from this encounter, but was talked out of this idea by his wife Khadija.

Now take a look at this passage from Isaiah, written a thousand years before Muhammad started hearing voices.  This is from a description of the state of mind of the enemies of Jerusalem (Israel):

And the entire vision shall be to you like the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate, saying, “Please read this,” he will say, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, “Please read this.” And he will say, “I cannot read.”

– Isaiah 29:11-12

It might not sound like much to you, but to a Muslim this is definitive.  This was actually pointed out to me by a Muslim as evidence that Muhammad is in the Bible, and I cannot dispute it.  The triumphant Muslims should pay heed to what the rest of the chapter says about the enemies of Israel, though:

But the multitude of your enemies shall become like fine dust,

And the multitude of the ruthless ones like the chaff which blows away;

And it shall happen instantly, suddenly.

From the LORD of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake and loud noise,

With whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire.

And the multitude of all the nations who wage war against Ariel [Jerusalem],

Even all who wage war against her and her stronghold, and who distress her,

Shall be like a dream, a vision of the night. – Isaiah 29:5-7

If this doesn’t sound like a battlefield nuclear weapon, I don’t know what does. Muslims are further described:

Then the Lord said,

“Because this people draw near with their words

And honor Me with their lip service,

But they remove their hearts far from Me,

And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,

Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;

And the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,

And the discernment of their discerning men shall be concealed.”

Woe to those who deeply hide their plans from the LORD,

And whose deeds are done in a dark place,

And they say, “Who sees us?” or “Who knows us?”

You turn things around!

Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay,

That what is made should say to its maker, “He did not make me”;

Or what is formed say to him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

– Isaiah 29:13-16

Muslims learn their Quran by rote, and to them its recital is prayer, even though they often don’t understand the words they are reciting, because it’s in a foreign language.  They make a great show of reverence, but by their actions only demonstrate intolerance, hatred, and jealousy.  They dispute the power of God, placing limitations on God according to their plebeian understanding. They say God cannot take the form of a man.  They say God cannot have a son, that god cannot be crucified in an earthly body, die and be resurrected.  After awhile one gets confused if God created the Muslims, or if the Muslims are in the process of creating God.

Isaiah caps this chapter with the triumph of Israel:

Therefore thus says the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob,

“Jacob shall not now be ashamed, nor shall his face now turn pale;

But when he sees his children, the work of My hands, in his midst,

They will sanctify My name;

Indeed, they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob,

And will stand in awe of the God of Israel.

“And those who err in mind will know the truth,

And those who criticize will accept instruction. – Isaiah 29:22-24

This one should cause Muslims to tremble. One of the fundamental tenets of Islam, and the thing that identifies Islam as the religion of Satan, is its underlying hatred of Israel.  Yet right here we are told that the house of Jacob shall triumph, and that Muslims will know the truth and (presumably the survivors) will accept instruction.  Muhammad is not of the house of Jacob, whose name was also Israel; only a Jew can claim that title.

Jesus gave clear warning of the dangers of Islam:

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’” - Matt 7:13-23

Look at the world today, the countries where the majority of the people are Muslim.  What are the fruits of these countries?  There are few contributions to science or the arts, there are scant numbers of Nobel laureates.  The main product of these countries are poorly educated young people who are radicalized by the religious schools of their upbringing.  These countries are characterized by high unemployment, illiteracy, staggering poverty, capricious judicial systems, and frequently interminable violence on the edge of outright war. There is a veneer of wealth in prosperity overlaying the rot, thanks to the usurious profits that come from oil sales, but this wealth is concentrated in the hands of a fortunate few.

There are many other places that are clearly referring to Islam.  All of the countries identified as being arrayed against – and inevitably destroyed by – Israel in the end-times prophecies are all Muslim countries today.

Muslims would do well to follow the advice of Muhammad -study the Bible and learn the books from which Muhammad plagiarized his theology without understanding what it was he was stealing.

Unconstitutional Wars?

 “To The Shores of Tripoli” by Raymond Massey

One of the pieces of misinformation that seems to be prominent this election cycle is the idea that the American actions in the Middle East for the last twenty-five years were illegal and unconstitutional. This idea was first floated by liberal Democrats to discredit the two Bush Administrations, but it’s gained traction in the military community in general and the supporters of Ron Paul in particular. Unfortunately, this rhetoric demonstrates a plebian understanding of the Constitution, history and the actions of the US Congress. Except for the Clinton administration adventure in Kosovo and the most recent actions in Libya, it’s just not true.

Before we dive into the discussion, we need to see what the constitution says on the matter.

Article II, section 8 defines the powers of Congress, among these is the power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

That’s it. There’s no rules concerning the form that such a declaration of war should take, the recipe for doing so, or any magic incantation that would differentiate an authorization for the use of force from a de facto Declaration of War.

The Constitution deliberately built in a tension between the Presidency and Congress, for while the Congress retains the sole power to declare war, Article II section 2 states that The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

The implication of this is that the President can do whatever he wants with the military during peace time, except commit them to combat. Presumably this includes deploying the military to foreign lands with which we have military cooperation agreements, for joint exercises.

This was an acceptable state of affairs in the eighteenth century, when communications took days and you would be aware of an approaching army weeks or months in advance. But technology overwhelmed this concept to the point where Congress could go to bed in peacetime, and wake up to a shooting war with US troops engaged in combat. Worse, with the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine launched attack systems, the President’s reaction time to respond militarily to an imminent attack on the USA could conceivably be reduced to mere minutes.

In 1973, the US congress, in a fit of collective amnesia, passed the War Powers Act, codifying the precise conditions and limits under which the President can deploy the military in today’s fast moving world. Many people misunderstand this to be a constitutional amendment. It is not. It’s just federal law designed to define the constitutional roles of Congress and the President within the realities of the Twentieth Century and beyond.

Some History

The political and diplomatic turmoil around the world that resulted from the power redistribution and decolonization that occurred after World War II led to a number of circumstances that were unforeseen by the founding fathers. The end of WWII found US soldiers on every continent in the world except South America, cast in the role of liberator or conquering hero. In both cases, the local government was typically non-functional, and the US administration of these countries was considered appropriate by all until a functioning government could be established. In the case of our former enemies, such a government necessarily had to conform to certain requirements of the conquering allies to ensure that the conditions that gave rise to WWII could not be resurrected.

This would have been an orderly progression of recovery from the devastation of WWII, except for a couple of flies in the ointment. First, the Soviet Union was exercising a methodic campaign to foment a socialist movement nearly everywhere it could assert influence. Such movements weren’t above using violence – indeed the Leninist model demanded that at some point violence would be necessary to throw off the bourgeoisie. Second, the US State Department was primarily concerned with preserving friendly ties with our wartime allies – particularly to present a united front to the growing menace of Soviet hegemony. This meant that a number of indigent populations in colonial lands owned by our allies were thrown under the bus in the post-war realignments. Very often this happened over the protests of US administrators in these areas. The OSS in French Indochina vehemently disagreed with the idea of returning that colony back to France after the war, saying that the Vietnamese and Cambodian people would not tolerate it, but they were ignored by the European desk of the State Department, which was calling the shots.

Tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviets peaked in 1948 with the Berlin Airlift. It became plain to the President and Congress that our nation simply could not afford to keep our commitments to our allies and oversee an orderly postwar realignment and still draw down our nation’s military to pre-war levels. This was confirmed when Chinese-supported North Koreans crossed the demarcation line between the occupation zones in 1950, and attempted to reunite the country under a communist government. The ensuing war was a disaster for the Communist bloc, and ended in an uneasy stalemate that continues to this day.

Realizing that a direct invasion by proxy would result in a powerful response from the western powers, the Soviets and China began pouring resources into low-key communist insurgencies. This placed the Western powers and the US in particular in an awkward situation. In order to prevent a power vacuum that would make a communist take-over a fait accompli, the US found itself supporting some right bastards as virtual dictators in countries who had recently cast off their colonial shackles. This was a less than optimal situation, and while these guys were bastards, at least they were our bastards.

The attempt to stall the Communist insurgencies and infiltrations of these countries required new ways of thinking when it came to manipulating military and political force. Unfortunately, the American mindset was educated from our recent military experiences in WWII and Korea. Our overwhelming victory in WWII gave us the political power to literally dictate terms to both our enemies and our allies resulting in an excessive amount of diplomatic hubris. These factors resulted in heavy-handed and inappropriate responses from the US in what had become the client states that we had sponsored after they had been decolonized. In our position as the world’s preeminent economic and military super power, we were unwilling to learn from the success of the British in the communist insurgency in Malaysia, which used a small number of highly trained counter-insurgency operatives and a dedicated campaign to win the hearts and minds of the locals and deny the enemy the advantages that an insurgency typically enjoys. The result of this was a series of ongoing US commitments of conventional ground forces into brushfire wars, and a general attitude that America had become the policeman of the world. This attitude was what made the American reaction to the invasion of Kuwait almost automatic.

Some More History

The main point of contention among the contemporary critics is that American soldiers were sent into Afghanistan and Iraq without a declaration of war, and that these actions are therefore unconstitutional.

This point is without merit.

The precedent of sending American soldiers overseas into a combat situation began in 1801 when then-president Thomas Jefferson (remember him? He had a bit of a hand in the forming of our government) deployed a naval frigate squadron and the US Marines to the Mediterranean coast of Africa to put an end to the Muslim pirates of the Barbary Coast. In many ways this action was little different than the deployments and fighting that’s been done since 1990. Was it constitutional? Jefferson felt it was, because he had Congressional approval starting with the 3rd congress, session 1, chapter 12, An Act to provide Naval Armament, which cited the depredations of the Algerian Corsairs as the reason for the Naval Appropriation. Congress further provided its approval and authorization for the use of force in the 7th congress, Session 1 chapter 4, An Act for the protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, against Tripolitan Cruisers. It very explicitly gave sanction to conduct military operations and to prosecute a war in the 8th congress, Session 1, chapter 46, An Act to further protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary powers, which specifically authorizes, “warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.”  There were in fact ten such congressional acts passed pertaining to the barbary wars, but you get the idea. Note that Congress did not specifically declare war on any other nation, nor was the term “Declaration of War” used.

For the folks who insist that America’s involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and yes, Vietnam was unconstitutional, please compare the legislation that Jefferson used to prosecute his military expedition, and those of the more recent congresses:

Authorization to invade Afghanistan, Public Law 107-40

Authorization to invade Iraq, Public Law 107-243

Authorization to prosecute Desert Storm, Public Law 102-1
One could argue that Desert Shield didn't get congressional approval, but Desert Shield was a massive deployment to an allied nation, and not a combat deployment, so there's a question whether the war Powers Act applied, a question the courts chose to abstain on in Ange v. Bush.

Authorization to commit military forces to fight in Vietnam, Public Law 88-408

All of these actions were authorized by congress under the same theory of law that Thomas Jefferson used for his actions against the Barbary pirates. Any political office holder – particularly any Congressman who was sitting when these laws were passed – who claims that these wars are unconstitutional is just being disingenuous (that’s a fancy word for “lying through his teeth”).

In closing, the idea of a “Declaration of War” is quickly becoming an archaic term. In the historical context of the day, a declaration of war meant that the people and government of one nation-state was at war with the people and government of another nation-state. In today’s context, this is rarely the case with the use of the US military. The United States is a constitutional republic, dedicated to the concept that people should be free to be governed by their consent. Most American ventures since WWII have been against regimes in support of the oppressed people they govern. It’s not the position of the USA to declare war on the people of a nation, rather we draw a distinction between the people and the government that we assume is not acting in the best interests of those people. The term “Declaration of War” carries a connotation of war against the people as well as the government of a nation that isn’t appropriate with the interests and goals of the United States. This doesn’t mean that our military ventures are unconstitutional, unless you’re willing to take the absurd position that Thomas Jefferson’s action was unconstitutional.

Whether these wars were ill-advised or properly executed is a different argument altogether. But no one can rationally make the argument that the conflicts mentioned in this article were unconstitutional.

Presidential Nominee Romney? Not So Fast.

Even though he hasn’t quite yet got the 1144 delegates necessary to cinch the Republican nomination, since the rest of the candidates having either suspended their campaigns or just run out of money to actively do anything, Mitt Romney is now the presumptive nominee. Indeed, he’s already turned his focus to the campaign against the sitting president. The apparatchiks of the Republican party are looking forward to the national convention being a pro-forma coronation ball, with the message that we must all unite “for the good of the party” to beat Barack Hussein Obama.

That’s certainly the message that’s being communicated throughout the Republican party establishment. Ah, if only it was that easy. From where I sit, there are still a lot of really pissed off people at the lowest levels of the conservative side of America. The most charitable thing that can be said for their relationship with Romney is that they view him with deep suspicion. I doubt they will ever quite get over that, and Romney’s mandate as the Republican candidate is tenuous at best.

One could logically point out that it’s mathematically impossible for any other candidate to get the required delegates, so Mitt is the nominee, get over it. Not so fast. A lot of the delegates that are showing up in Romney’s column aren’t as firm as the party and the media would like you to believe. For example, my State of Washington will send 45 delegates to the national convention. 5 of those are automatic slots for state committee members, 10 of them are delegates at large, and the rest will be made up of delegates selected from the ten congressional districts. Since Romney won the non-binding straw poll, everyone assumes that they can chalk up 45 delegates in his column.

And here’s where politics come in to play. First of all, there are an awful lot of Ron Paul delegates going to the state convention, because the Ron Paul machine is very well oiled up here. Then you have to factor in the delegates who caucused for Santorum and Gingrich. These are basically free agents, capable of tilting the race in either direction if they vote as a bloc. And this is the critical thing. Romney has given them no reason to get behind his campaign, and there’s a lot of reasons - still – to vote against him. The Romney organization was unable to turn the tide at the county conventions, and as of this writing, it's highly likely that 2/3 of the Washington delegates going to the national convention will be other than Romney supporters.

This isn’t sour grapes or a conservative temper tantrum by people who didn’t get their way. Our representative government system is designed to ensure that the minorities aren’t steamrollered by the majority. For the non-Romney people, there’s a very big motive to deny Romney a clear victory going into the national convention in Tampa.

The worry among the rank and file conservatives is that this is going to be a replay of the G.W. Bush administration. Instead of reforming a new government, with fresh new ideas and a new perspective on how things work inside the beltway, Bush 43 loaded his administration from top to bottom with the republican old guard, resurrecting many of his Father’s people and placing them back in top positions to run the country. This wouldn’t have been that much of a problem if his dad had overseen an exemplary administration, but that wasn’t the case. Bush 41’s presidency was mediocre at best, characterized by moderation, and ultimately doomed by disillusioned conservatives who wanted to believe in something besides the status quo, no matter how outrageous it sounded. His son deliberately designed his administration to be more of the same.

Romney is perceived to be a Republican establishment creature, and is expected to load his administration with cronies and establishment insiders. The chatter over his Vice Presidential possibilities is indicative. The short list all revolves around established names in the party machine: Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, etc. The idea of Allen West is pooh-poohed by the talking heads as being “inexperienced,” “unseasoned,” etc. The fact is that he was put into office by the TEA party and does not toe the party line. Therefore he’s not in consideration.

This kind of attitude does not sit well with the not-Romney majority of the Republican party, and this contingent seems to be reaching critical mass. They’re talking to each other and planning. The Ron Paul and Rick Santorum enthusiasts are realizing they have more in common than they have differences, and that together they may be able to gather enough power in the national convention to squeeze some major concessions from Romney regarding cabinet positions and the makeup of his administration.

There’s a general sentiment from the not-Romney folks that they realize that the nomination is a done deal, but they want to register a protest vote to put the establishment on notice that we’re mad as hell and we’re not taking it any more. But if the power of the minority of delegates who have the ability to swing the vote is focused by thoughtful application and choosing their fights, they might be able to drag the Romney ticket kicking and screaming back to the right.

Some of the things that such a conservative alliance could push for might include appointing Ron Paul as the Secretary of the Treasury, John Bolton as Secretary of State, Newt Gingrich as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, David Petraeus as Secretary of Defense.

Among the faces we don’t want to ever see near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave are Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, John McCain, John Ashcroft, Ben Bernanke, John Beohner or Tom Ridge. This country has been driven into the ditch by the shortsightedness that such people brought to their service, and it need not be repeated. We no longer need Washington insiders who know how the system works and have a vested interest in perpetuating it. We need fresh blood at all levels of the new administration who are inclined to ask “Why the hell are we doing it this way, and where does it say you can do that in the constitution?”

We can have such an administration if conservatives force Mitt Romney to accede to their demands before they agree to nominate him. That will take a lot of coordination and trust among the not-Romney delegates. Deals will have to be made, and everyone will have to understand that they won’t get everything they want, but their piece of the pie can still be substantial.

Is Ron Paul Still a Viable Candidate?

I stepped into the political ring this year, and it’s been quite an education. I first went to the precinct caucus to provide a voice of reason against a very strong and very well organized Ron Paul contingent in my part of the state.  This ultimately led to my being selected to go first to the county and then to the state convention, where I would have a chance to run as a delegate for the National Republican convention if I wanted to go.  I don’t think I’ll do that, because I have other financial priorities at the moment.

But one of the effects of this activity is that I’ve learned that what the media is reporting is often very different from what’s actually happening.  The conventional wisdom right now is that Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee for the Republican party.  He’s the anointed one by the mainstream media and the Republican party establishment.

But from my position in the trenches, I’m not seeing it.  For example, he won in the Washington state straw poll that was taken on the day of the caucus, and so Washington was declared for Mitt Romney.

Not so cotton-picking fast.  The Ron Paul and Santorum campaigns got organized before the county conventions, and with some cooperation from the grass roots that wasn’t authorized by the Gingrich campaign, these three campaigns unified to send proportional numbers of delegates to the state convention, almost completely shutting out the Romney delegates.  From what I hear, this wasn’t the only county where this happened.  Numerically Romney may still have more delegates at the state convention than the other campaigns, but hardly a plurality.  With the Santorum and Gingrich delegates now being basically free agents, the Not-Romney delegates far outnumber the Romney delegates.  I could easily see a scenario where Washington sends a delegation composed of Ron Paul and free agents to the national convention, completely shutting out Mittens.

The word to the media and to the Romney campaign is, therefore, don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.  There’s a ground swell of resentment among the conservatives of this nation, fueled by the TEA party, that’s sick and tired of the career, business as usual, establishment Republicans who vote the status quo in congress and don’t use their majority status to render the liberal democrats irrelevant. Conservatives on the grass roots level are tired of Republicans reaching across the aisle and then getting jerked off their feet. Bipartisanship to a Democrat means voting the Democrat agenda, nothing more.

So does Ron Paul have a chance?  Based on his campaign to date, I sincerely hope that answer is no.  Don’t get me wrong, I like what Ron Paul has to say on domestic policy, I really do.  We need the federal government to relinquish all powers that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution.  We need to get spending under control, and we need to abolish the federal reserve system.

But Ron Paul’s stated foreign policies are completely at odds with reality.  He seems to have no rational approach to evaluating the intent of foreign powers and how the actions of foreign powers affect the United States.  His statements about Domestic vs. Foreign energy production seem to be at odds with his stated endorsement of free trade.  His ideas about precipitously reducing the US military presence worldwide is ill-advised, does not reflect the very complex reality of world affairs, and could very easily result in millions of deaths where just the implied possibility of US intervention is a stabilizing influence in simmering regional conflicts.

The problem with Ron Paul is reflected in his followers, who mostly have a very libertarian bent.  Remember that Ron Paul was himself the Libertarian candidate for years, until he adopted the “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” attitude that got him elected to congress.  His problem is that his rigid adherence to principle makes him unable to provide a flexible, well-reasoned response to the realities of a given situation.  Given a Republican congress, this inflexibility would actually be an asset in correcting the course of the nation, but in international affairs, that flexibility will be taken advantage of by agents who do not have the best interests of the USA in their hearts.  A flexible, restrained, realistic approach to international affairs is essential to prevent a repeat of the bloody chaos of the twentieth century.  In this realm Ron Paul has demonstrated that he’s no historian, and no social scientist.

Based solely on the support of his ardent – almost religious – following, Ron Paul cannot win the nomination.  But given the very large pool of free agent delegates Ron Paul could force a brokered convention and could conceivably win the nomination if he played his cards right.  There’s a huge number of delegates already in place that would love nothing better than to poke a stick in the eye of the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and put them on notice that their moderate, RINO way of governing isn’t playing well in Peoria.  The problem that's causing these anti-establishment folks to lose sleep is the idea that a protest vote against the establishment selection of Romney could be too successful, and they end up accidentally nominating Ron Paul!

This doesn’t have to be a bad thing.  Ron Paul could re-ignite his campaign with the remaining undecided or recently disenchanted Santorum/Gingrich camps by stepping back from his foreign policy rhetoric, hiring John Bolton as his foreign policy advisor and potential Secretary of State and making the following concessions to the independent delegates:

• The USA will continue to uphold ratified treaty obligations, including those that require American forces to be stationed overseas.
• The USA will support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and actively work to deny nuclear capability to unstable countries, i.e. Iran and presumptively North Korea.
• The USA will continue to provide unwavering support to our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.
• The USA will continue to be an advocate for international law and the sovereignty of all nations.
• The USA will continue to be an advocate of human rights around the world, and will work against all nations who play politics with hunger.

Ron Paul’s stated policy to bring the troops home from all over the world is a laudable one, but totally impractical in the short term.  In the long term this would be a very desirable goal.  But we’ve spent the last 70 years insinuating ourselves into world affairs, and have for better or worse been cast as the major player in many regions outside of North America.  A withdrawal from these stages would need to be well-planned and carried out over a period of years if not decades, to allow these regions the opportunity to adjust to a different balance of power without collapsing into chaos.  Chaos kills people and is bad for business.

If Ron Paul can re-brand himself on international policy; if he will publicly admit that he’s weak in this field and will hire and take the council of reputable experts, then he could very well squeak out a win.  And if this were to happen, I wouldn’t have a problem with that.  Hell, I would heartily endorse the man and raise a toast to his honor!

The lesson to the Ron Paul enthusiasts is that a half a loaf is better than none.  The Ron Paul camp consistently wants ALL of their agenda implemented, no exceptions, and have been unwilling to cooperate with people whose ideas do not match theirs.  They fail to recognize that this rigid idealism inevitably alienates them from people who share most of their values, and results in the candidate who least represents their positions from getting in power.  Very good case in point:  In the Washington state governors race between Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi, the margin by which Gregoire won was very very tight.  So tight, in fact, that the number of votes cast for the libertarian candidate - that's the same group that will vote for Paul - was more than the number of votes that Rossi needed for a win. I fail to see how electing the liberal Gregoire does anything to promote the cause of the libertarians.  Quite the opposite.  One lesson we need to take from how the liberal agenda has been implemented is that incrementalism works.  The all or nothing mindset of the Libertarian, Ron Paul supporters is self-defeating and needs to be dispensed with.

Want Joseph Kony? Get Him Yourself!

I’m sure you’re aware of the Kony2012 campaign. The expressed goal of this campaign is to make the Ugandan butcher Joseph Kony a household name, to raise awareness and bring him to justice. The implied goal is that this awareness will result in pressure on our government to DO SOMETHING!

Our government. That is, the US government. Because, seriously, who else can do it?

If you haven’t seen the video, you should check it out. At about 13:55 in the video, we see the proponents of action being rebuffed by the government. Washington Politicians rightly state that capturing Kony is not something that affects the US security or US interests. The US government’s charter is to safeguard the rights and safety of US citizens. Not the rights and safety of anyone in the world. Later in the video these folks get a grass roots movement going on the part of a whole lot of people who apparently haven’t read the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence. Now the politicians take note, and start paying attention, because their job is to get re-elected, even if it means shredding the constitution to do it.

Before I get into the questionability of what these people propose, let me first state that while the humanitarian activities of this group is laudable, they are hardly the only charity working in Uganda, and there are many others who use the money you donate more efficiently than these folks do. Before you reach for your wallet, research the charity groups, look at their public filings about how much of the donations go where you intend, and make your own mind up.

I vehemently oppose the idea that the US government should have a role in capturing Kony. Anyone; as a citizen of the US, as an agent of the government, as an advocate for US policy; makes an egregious error if they think it's morally acceptable for the US government to deploy military force under the US flag to hunt for this animal Joseph Kony. They do not - the government does not - have the right to coerce anyone else - any American soldier - to act on their behalf in this matter. There is no imminent public safety threat to US citizens; it's not a matter for the US government; any more than the current unrest in Syria is, or any more than the recent actions in Libya were. The US must divest itself of this mistaken idea that we’re the world’s police force. This idea has gotten us nothing but heartache, failure and far too many coffins returning home from war in the last thirty years. I am no peacenik – there is a time and circumstance for war – but far too often we have used the military to try to accomplish missions that by their very nature have no acceptable resolution.

If this movement really has this many people behind it, and is collecting donations, then let them go get Kony themselves. Seriously folks, quit thinking that the government is the go-to person every time you have a problem. There's plenty of mercenary guns for hire - well respected ones like Blackwater - who will take the contract and do the mission more quickly and efficiently than any governmental organization. Or take more general action and just put a bounty on his head - dead or alive.  And let's have a reality check here, to stop Kony, you will have to kill him. Any other result is a fairy tale. He will never appear before the ICC.

And once you kill him, then what? Take a look at ICC's list, see how many other officers of the LRA are on there. And plenty more that haven't gotten notice from the ICC because the leaders are getting all the attention. This is whack-a-mole. You eliminate one, another just pops up to take his place. The fact is there will always be a "Kony" out there until you remove the environment that breeds these vermin. And now we're talking about nation-building again. That concept is a bottomless pit and has never worked when it's been tried, because these conditions aren't about infrastructure or economics, they're a result of attitudes and cultural values - or what we might think of as lack of same.

Get Kony. Then get the fifteen others that take his place. and once you get them all, go after the similar but less well known groups doing the same thing, who never got big because Kony was around. I guarantee you'll never run out of bastards to round up in Uganda. You think Kony is an aberration? Remember Idi Amin? Kony isn't the problem, he's a symptom. Until the Ugandan people are fed up with this and choose a different path, and are willing to - as our forefathers did - mutually pledge to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor, and take up arms as a community and say "ENOUGH!" then this will go on. This is not something that can be solved by foreign intervention.

The video interviews Santo Okot Lapolo and Norbert Mao, Ugandan politicians. They state that the international community needs to arrest Joseph Kony, that they are willing to cooperate with the international community. If these politicians were true statesmen, they would require the Ugandan army to secure the safety of their citizens in the areas affected by Kony, and be incensed at the idea that they need help from the international community. They know there’s a lot of money to be made if international assistance comes to Uganda, and they’re perfectly positioned to see that a lot of that money goes through their hands. To be fair, however, Kony has left Uganda, and is has been operating in Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Congo for 5 years at least.

You got Kony’s name well known. Good job! Now go get him yourself. Don’t ask for a single drop of blood from an American soldier to do it, and don’t ask for a single dime of taxpayer money to do it. I know there are a bunch of American servicemen who would happily do this for you, but that’s not what they’re being paid for by the US taxpayer, that’s not why we have an army. Remove our advisers from Uganda. If they want military advice, there’s plenty of private companies who will advise them for a price.

I oppose the implicit goals of this movement to raise public awareness for the purposes of pressuring government action. Awareness, fine. Great. Government action? NO! absolutely not. This reminds me too much of how some other Really Bad Ideas got started.

US Presence in Muslim Countries

Smile, but then remember that this video is a metaphor for US efforts to bring peace, stability and progress to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan (And coming soon to a combat theater near you: Iran and Syria!).  There is chaos while everyone fights for their share of the candy.  The bigger kids make sure the little kids don't get any candy.  If the little kids do get candy, the bigger kids take it from them. When the candy runs out, they quickly abandon you, and tell you to GTFO of their country. There will never be enough candy. The more candy that is distributed, the more rotten the teeth become.

Stop the Jizyah!

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

-(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah   9:29)

“Accept Islam, pay the Jizyah, or the sword!” – The choices offered to infidel communities in the path of the 7^th century Muslim conquests.

Jizyah.  Tribute.  Tax on the dhimmi – the non-believer who willingly lives under Islamic law. One of the purposes of the Jizyah is to intentionally humiliate the non-believer. Everyone living under Islam has to pay for the privilege.  As a Muslim, you would be subject to the zakat, or temple tax.  If you are a khaffir, or non-believer, you are subject to Jizyah.  According to Muslims, this tax subsidizes the protection that the dhimmi enjoys, and is only fair because a dhimmi is exempted from military service.

Before we go down that road, let’s take a moment and recall the other things that a dhimmi is exempted from.  A dhimmi cannot be in a position of authority over a Muslim.  A dhimmi cannot hold public office.  A dhimmi cannot bring suit against a Muslim in court (at least not with any chance of winning – dhimmis are not allowed to be judges).  In effect Dhimmis are third-class citizens, second being Muslim women.

We have to examine the protection that this tax pays for.  Protection from what?  Why, Muslims, of course! In essence, our Muslim friends, having attained authority in a country, declare that non-muslims have to pay protection money, without which. . . well, who knows what might happen the next time a mullah whips the crowd into a frenzy against infidels?  Since Jizyah is obligatory, and every Muslim feels it’s his solemn holy duty to enforce the edicts of Allah, if news spreads that you missed your Jizyah payment, every Muslim in reach will automatically assume that it’s open season on you. You have no recourse to the law.  And there’s nothing a devout Muslim likes better than to do Allah’s holy work and send an infidel to Hell.

It’s the biggest protection racket in the world.  Think Mafia, and then remember where the Mafia learned their lessons: Sicily was under Muslim occupation from 965 until 1061.

Muslims are unabashed in their belief that Jizyah is their due.  In the eighteenth century Maritime powers regularly paid tribute to the Muslim Barbary pirates to ensure safe passage of shipping within reach of the coast of North Africa.  The fledgling USA appropriated $80,000 to be paid in tribute to the Barbary pirates in 1784.  In a day when there was no income tax, the US government was forced to raise money by import duties and raising levies among the citizens.  As can be imagined, the willingness of the US population to contribute to pay the Muslim maritime Jizyah was non-existent. The US was forced to pay ransoms for ships and crews captured, rather than a regular tribute.  In 1795, the USA paid nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from Muslim pirates of Algiers.

In 1801 the pasha of Tripoli demanded an immediate Jizyah payment of $225,000 and annual payments of $25,000 from the US.  The newly elected President Thomas Jefferson realized that there would be no end to the demands, and refused.  The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the USA.  The resulting four year war was the first time that American forces were deployed on overseas soil, and the US Marine became the natural enemy of the Islamist extremist. Tribute/ransom payments continued in one  form or another until a second war in 1815.

The idea of Jizyah, or tribute, was resurrected in 1978, and agreed to by arch-traitor President Jimmy Carter at the Camp David peace accords.  Again, to purchase protection from Muslim armies, the USA committed to pay $1.3 billion annually in the form of “military aid” to Egypt.  This was the cost of purchasing protection for Israel from Egypt. Those subsidies continue to this day.  With the recent change of power in Egypt, the new government was sure to remind the USA of its obligations, and blatantly stated that ending the Jizyah subsidy would release Egypt from its agreement and leave it free to attack Israel.

The result of this insane policy is that Israel and the USA face the spectre of an attacking force armed with the best Western military technology that money can buy, including the M1A1 Abrams tank – currently undefeated in battle. The Egyptian slang for an M1?  “Jew-killer”.

The US taxpayer pays an annual Jizyah to the Muslim government in Egypt, protection money to prevent Egypt from attacking Israel.  This is blackmail, and needs to stop.  This money would be much better invested in ensuring that we are able to annihilate Egypt’s military capability should they attack a neighbor for the crime of being a non-Jizyah paying infidel. Until Islam is subdued, they will continue to try to extort money from the productive countries of the world and return nothing except the hollow promise that they won’t attack us – today.

Santorum: The Not-Mitt, Not-Newt Candidate

Last night Rick Santorum had a surprisingly good night, coming from out of nowhere to win Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri (although Missouri is admittedly a beauty pageant, their delegates will be selected in a caucus).

Is this an indication that Rick has what it takes to maintain this lead, or is it a repudiation of Mitt Romney?  Sadly, I think the latter.  I’m not sad that Mitt is being repudiated, mind you, but that we’re not fronting a powerful candidate who is a clear choice to lead the country.  I’m afraid that Santorum is benefiting from Romney and Gingrich beating each other bloody. Romney has realized that he can’t win against Newt without going negative, and spent a heinous amount of money in Florida doing just that.  It’s a balancing act, to go negative enough to do the necessary damage to win the nomination, without poisoning the well for November, leaving your base disillusioned and staying home.

Romney has lots of problems.  The conservative base is not enamored of him. His record of governing seems to lean very left of center.  Yeah, people can change, but actions speak louder than words.  He’s seen as a member of the Republican establishment, and if there’s anything the election of 2010 told us, it’s that the right is sick of the Republican establishment, business as usual, reach across the aisle politics of Boehner, McConnell and McCain. It was the Republican establishment that helped get us into this mess by not getting a backbone and standing up against the democrats as they piled on social program after social program without a single idea of how to pay for them.

There’s a considerable sentiment among the conservatives that wonders about the wisdom of nominating the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in 2008.  Seriously, this guy polled behind career RINO McCain.  Why is he even a contender this time around?  Is the right comfortable with the idea that you can buy a nomination?  I think not.

The right is also very suspicious of another political dynasty. We’re bothered by those.  We’ve had enough country club political dynasties.  We don’t want another Kennedy family or Bush family wielding so much influence on America.  Romney’s father was the Governor of Michigan.  That’s enough Romney for a few generations, thank you. The voting record shows this – Mittens is polling about where he was four years ago, and he lost then.

Romney speaks well and says more or less the right things, but that’s all it seems like.  It’s hard to tell if he’s saying what he does from a conservative foundation of principles, or if he’s just saying the expedient things that will get him elected.  The lack of detail on specific issues makes him sound like any other political candidate.  Newt, on the other hand, is willing to go into whatever level of detail you want to go on any given subject. 

The problem with Newt is not his failed marriages – I’ve heard an interesting argument there that there’s something about this guy that attracts women, even when he’s already spoken for.  That should tell us something.  His problem is not his political record, where he was run out of office by a revolt among the establishment republicans – led by then junior congressman John Boehner.  For a lot of people that’s a selling point – proof that Newt isn't an establishment guy. 

No, Newt’s problem is that he’s usually the smartest guy in the room, and it’s obvious. That’s probably a good thing; it would be nice to have an intelligent person in the White House for a change.  But it’s not likely to happen, because America isn’t made up of brainiacs who aren’t uncomfortable in the presence of someone like Newt.  America is predominantly sports jock types, who squirm uncomfortably in the presence of someone like Newt, because they’re outclassed and they know it. I know, I know, not everyone is like that, I’m not saying Newt isn’t doing well.  He just won’t do well enough to win.  That’s a loss for America.

The bottom line is that Santorum’s main advantage coming out of last night’s wins is that he’s not-Newt and not-Mitt.  Don’t get me wrong, I do like Rick Santorum.  I’ve listened to him on the radio doing interviews for years and never had a problem with what he said. He’s just not the heaviest hitter in the field right now, and I think America is losing an opportunity if Gingrich isn’t nominated.

And then there’s that foreign policy nutter Ron Paul, but that’s a subject for a different discussion.