21 de julio de 2009

Zelaya – Honduras

Personal del kiosco de periódicos

Digamos este claro, ruidosamente y orgulloso:  Thomas Jefferson y Benjamin Franklin habló como padres de fundación, en diversas horas durante su historia de la vida pública, que la noción de una democracia sin una clase de votación educada era sin valor.  Suscribimos a ese punto de vista.  La noción “de un hombre, un voto”, si ese los medios que uneducated, illiterate, saber-nada se forman de la gente se permite para votar sobre quitar derechos humanos fundamentales de la gente en su propio país, que no es una democracia; ésa es una dictadura de las masas.  Es exactamente lo que preguntaban los Bolsheviks en la revolución de 1917 en Rusia. Nada más y nada menos.  El Tribunal Supremo de Honduras sostuvo que la oferta de presidente Zelaya para tener las masas del voto Honduran del electorado para hacerle a un dictador no es constitucional.  No es constitucional dentro de Honduras.  Y no es constitucional en términos de su negación de los derechos humanos y de los freedoms de los en Honduras que no convengan con las políticas substantivas de Zelaya, sus políticas substantivas nacionalmente o sus políticas substantivas en términos de políticas extranjeras de Honduras.  Hugo Chavez de Venezuela se siente de otra manera; Fidel Castro de Cuba se siente de otra manera; Adolf Hitler de Alemania sentido de otra manera; nuestra secretaria del estado dice que ella se siente de otra manera; y presidente Barack Obama se siente al parecer de otra manera.  Ningunas de estas posiciones son qué se puede fundamental llamar.

____________________________________________________

July 21, 2009

North Korea

Newstand Staff

North Korea launched during the week of July 5, 2009, specifically to correspond with our Independence Day here in the United States, a cyber attack on the computer infrastructure of the United States Government.  This attack featured an attack on particular identified websites relating to our national defense and our national security in Washington.  Other attacks were made at the same time on that same infrastructure within the Republic Korea.  This Newstand had referred to the fact in the past that the government of Russia and the Peoples’ Republic of China have created mechanisms to attack this infrastructure inside the United States.  This Newstand has stated explicitly in the past that the creation of this mechanism constituted an act of war against the United States and needed to be dealt with as such and, of course, that message fell on the deaf ears of the entirety of the foreign policy bureaucracy of the Obama Administration in Washington.  This Newstand has it on the highest authorities within the Intelligence Community that the technological mechanisms by which North Korea actually engaged in this attack were provided to the government of North Korea by the government of the Peoples’ Republic of China and by the government of Russia. The attack on our National Defense infrastructure by the government of North Korea clearly constitutes an act of war.  The Obama Administration knows where this originated and has even announced it as such in the media.  Yet nothing is done. 

We can say this here and we are going to say this very loud and clear, the attack by the government of North Korea upon our national security infrastructure was a probe, designed to see what our defense would be and when and how they could get through, and when and how they could not get through.  The importance of this to the American public is that, unlike Russia and unlike the Peoples’ of Republic of China and unlike North Korea, we are not a third world nation; we are a nation which, if you take down our national computer infrastructure, you have basically paralyzed this Nation’s ability to respond in terms of national defense to any major and substantial foreign act of aggression or act of war. That is what this probe was about.  There is not doubt in our mind, based on the intelligence sources that we have reporting to us, that this is exactly what  Russia and China intended with regard to the this particular probe that took place during the week of July 5, 2009. 

Let us say this a different way, if we were to take down the computer infrastructure of the national defense mechanism of either Russia, China, or North Korea, we would not impact on any of those countries in conducting warfare or in conducting acts of self defense, to the degree that they would impact our ability to conduct warfare or to conduct acts of national defense if they took down our infrastructure.  That is because they are third world countries and they rely on manpower primarily in their armies, and that means infantry, to carry out their warfare activities and that those orders can be given to those manpower units in ways which were very effective prior to the existence of computers or the internet and are still very effective today.  What these countries know is that we have become over reliant on computer software and related infrastructures to be able to carry out commands to our Armed Forces and in carrying out their mission for our national defense or operations.

________________________________________________________________

July 1, 2009

NATIONAL PASSENGER RAIL IN THE OBAMA STIMULUS PACKAGE

Domestic Newstand Editor Kathy Pearson and Newstand Staff

This Newstand, as well as the Association as a whole, vigorously lobbied during the Bush Administration, contrary to the wishes of the Bush Administration, for enhanced National Passenger Rail throughout the length and breadth of the United States, including both commuter rail in our major commuter markets such as the Northeast Corridor and the Los Angles - San Francisco Corridor and the Florida Corridor, as well as enhancing both the amount of money put into track repair and upkeep, with a priority of National Passenger Rail over the freight trains which in fact which own most of the tracks in America.  All of this lobbying in the Bush Administration fell on deaf ears.

We are glad to see that President Obama has put in the 2009 Stimulus Package a grand total to date of $13 billion identified for high speed rail and $100 billion over the next five years for enhancement in National Passenger Rail (meaning Amtrak) as a long term investment.  This is truly an investment.  This is not wasteful spending.  This is an investment in the national security of the United States for the long term.  Here is why:  we need National Passenger Rail to transport troops throughout the continental U.S., at a minimum, if our enemies attack our ability to transport troops in an emergency on domestic passenger airlines. They have shown that clear cut capability in the past on 9/11.  This is not a fictional argument.  It is a real argument.  We need substantial enhancements to move people throughout the length and breadth of the United States at a moments’ notice on National Passenger Rail, as opposed to simply relying on commercial airplanes to fill in the gap of military air transport in an emergency.

At the same time, to keep up the ability of the marketplace, including the marketplace of free people desiring to move with regard to their transportation needs; to keep that market, we need those customers to pay a fee for the usage of National Passenger Rail. Passenger rail cannot simply be socialized or nationalized or funded merely by the government.  To keep up that marketplace we need to make National Passenger Rail free from the sources of interference that are currently showing up at our airports with regard to the denial of American citizens and their right to travel on airplanes.  National Passenger Rail needs to be free for people to be able to move on it, in order for it to be efficient and for it to be profitable in a free market. 

The majority of long distance Passenger Rail passengers on Amtrak right now are senior citizens on vacation in the United States.  Commuters who are trying to get to work in our urban hubs, many of them young people and middle aged people, are the overwhelming majority of those who use commuter rail, which is why commuter rail is probably the most profitable sector of National Passenger Rail.  To change that situation, this Nation needs to do a couple of things:  it needs to change the demographics of the people who are traveling on long distance national rail (Amtrak) to include many, many other groups other than senior American citizens; young people need to be encouraged to use that method of travel as opposed to using airplanes; other people who want to see the beauty of the scenery on board our long term National Passenger Rail, but who now take airplanes, need to be converted from airplane usage to train usage. That latter requires, many, many more high speed trains while at the same time keeping the beauty of the land scenery within their eyesight as opposed to what they are shown on an airplane.  Long distance passenger rail is not user friendly enough to this market share.  That needs to be changed. To change it we need a substantial increase in the number of quantitative tracks that are laid down in the United States and the quantitative number of trains traveling long distance in the United States.  At the same time that system need to be made user friendly to these American citizens, so that they are not harassed by the kind of long lines that we see in airports throughout the length and breadth of United States, as to how and when they are going to get on a particular train. 

The same analogy can be carried over to commuter rail.  We need more tracks laid down for commuter rail just as we need to widen our roadways for our cars and automobiles for commuters.  We need more trains.  For these people, and above all else, we need to make commuter rail user friendly to the commuter, the American citizen commuters who are using commuter rail.  One of the biggest choke blocks to this system is that CSX or other private freight companies own the railway tracks. That has got to be ended.  Those tracks have got to be taken over in the interest of national security, which is an argument we made in the first paragraph of this article, by the federal government of the United States.  Our government cannot permit a private company to hold rail track up to us, the citizens, as a form of blackmail and say, “Well, you can’t use them for passenger rail or passenger rail which would make more efficient the movement of the United States Armed Forces within the continental United States, unless you have our approval to do so.”  That’s got to end and it’s got to end right now, and not after the horse is already out of the barn with another attack on our civilian aviation system. 

Let’s sum up:  we applaud President Obama for putting the amount of money that he did into the Stimulus Package for National Passenger Rail. It is still far, far, far too less by at least ten times over what should have been put into the Stimulus Package for National Passenger Rail investment, as opposed to what was put into other wasteful spending items in the Obama 2009 Stimulus Package.  Second, National Passenger Rail will not work unless it is subsidized by individual passengers who see it as a free market alternative to civilian airplane travel.  To do so, that travel on board our passenger trains must be made free and freer than what is being done, as a matter or government regulation with regard to our to our civilian domestic airline travel in the United States. 

____________________________________________________________

July 1, 2009

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD WINS IRAN PRESIDENCY AGAIN; HO HUM

Middle Eastern Newstand Editor Gene Furlow and

Newstand Staff

We are going to say this again on this Newstand for a about the umpteenth time: it is the Council of the Grand Mullahs that runs Iran.  It is not the elected president of Iran or the elected parliament of Iran that runs Iran.  It is the dictatorship of the Mullahs that runs Iran.  These people to a man, are dictators, evil, anti-American; believe that Iran needs to be a dominant force in the world threatening others the way ancient Persia was a thousand years before the birth of Christ; and that Iran needs to become a nuclear state, meaning a state which has nuclear weapons. They are also anti-Semitic; hate Jews and believe all Jews, every single Jewish man, woman and child on the face of this earth, needs to be killed; and fundamentally believe the same thing about Americans and American society.

These people run Iran.  No one else.

Contrary to the popular will of the Iranian people, they have declared that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their puppet boy, has been re-elected in a “landslide” victory over his more moderate rival.  So what?  Ho hum!

These people are fundamentally evil, and they will be stopped only when the rest of the world has the courage to stand up to against them and stop these bottom feeders for what they are.

Contrary to what we have said here, President Obama put one of his White House spokesmen on national television of the afternoon of June 15, 2009 to say, and we quote,

“The White House will deal with the Iran we are confronted with as fact, as opposed to

The Iran we wish we had.” 

There is no such thing as a more un-American foreign policy pronouncement than this, that this Newstand has ever heard from any President of the United States.  The mission of United States foreign policy, the calling of United States foreign policy, is to bring democracy and freedom to the world; to deal with the world we do wish to bring; to bring to the rest of the world the promise that this Nation holds, the promise that Providence itself intended that this Nation hold for the rest of the world.  Deceptive and sneaky statements to the contrary, in especial regard to this particular Mahmoud Ahmadinejad government in Iran, constitute substantial mischief launched at the American people.  President Obama’s statements are in fact a disguise to the possibility that he actually likes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and likes the fact that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as the Grand Council of the Mullahs, stand for ideals the President may also stand for:  opposition to American "arrogance" in world affairs, and socialism domestically.

 There were riots and have been riots in the streets of Iran by the decent people of Iran who are pro-American, riots this Newstand predicted, who know that this election in Iran was a lie orchestrated by the likes of the Grand Council of the Mullahs.  They burned cars; they marched in the street; they rioted against this vicious lie of a government. And they were shot down by murderers.

There is no law this Newstand knows of which says we have to deal with anti-American murderers.

Lets see if we get this straight: if you’re foreign thug dictator who shoots down or imprisons American citizens in your country (North Korea, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iran) or who jacks up the price of gasoline at our pumps in violation of our anti – trust laws (every member of OPEC), or who pirates our music industry’s productions in violation of our copyright laws (government of the Peoples’ Republic of China), or who hacks into our governmental computer systems in violation of our laws (governments of Russia and China), or who authorizes the sending of fraudulent foreign emails asking our citizens for money (government of Nigeria),  or who authorizes the transhipment of drugs from your country for sale to our children (Hugo Chavez, Venezuela; Fidel Castro, Cuba; current government of Bolivia), we, including especially, American law enforcement from the President on down, do NOTHING. But if you are an American citizen from Texas, accused of an investment Ponzi scheme in which only the citizens of Barbados were hurt, or a rich American who talked trash against the Obama Administration’s polices for more regulations of Americans, American regulators bring charges against you, or your family after you’re dead, simply because you’re EASIER TO CATCH. This isn’t justice; this is hypocritical injustice. 

The United States of America should stand, not with words, with action, with those true and brave hearts in Iran who were shot down by the mullahs, and not against them. Obama’s current foreign policy is a folly based on fallacies of thought. We should clear the smote the from the foreigners’ eyes, whatever it takes, before we start taking on our own people for the same or similar sins. Now that would really be INTERNATIONALISM - one World - “We Are the World.”

June 17, 2009

OBAMA – KHATEMI – AHMADINEJAD

Middle Eastern Newsdesk Editor Gene Furlow and Newstand Staff

What is coming out of Iran tonight on Twitter and on Facebook on whom this Newstand  have identified as the dictators of Iran, the Grand Council of the Mullahs, including the “Supreme Leader”  Khatemi, is that hundreds of thousands of people in Iran, the real people of Iran, who seek reasonable relations and friendly relations with the people of the United States, the people of Iran who have nothing against the United States of America and never have had anything against the United States of America, the anti-Mullah people of Iran, the majority of the people of Iran, as opposed to the Islamist fanatics who took over Iran in armed revolution against the Shah based on a philosophy of the anti-American thug Khomeini in 1979, are protesting in the most violent form, and only form that is left open to them, the same violent form that Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers of the American Republic talked about in our Declaration of Independence, that the people who are oppressed by a government that denies them their fundamental rights that are given to them by Providence,  these fundamental rights which are inalienable by any government, certainly including, and without limitation, the freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; these people are creating, as our Declaration of Independence says they have a right to create, a violent expression against these thugs and animals who exist within the Grand Council of the Mullahs of Iran, and who exist in the Presidency of Iran, meaning that individual President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to overthrow them and to bring them to the violent justice that they deserve.

We contrast our words here with the words of the President of United States, President Barack Obama in the Rose Garden this month June, 2009, in his Rose Garden Press Conference with the President of the South Korea, in which he referred to this subhuman piece of garbage Khatemi who rules Iran as a dictator, as the “Supreme Leader,” of Iran.  At the same time, the President said in that Rose Garden news conference that he wanted to cooperate with the “Supreme Leader.”

We here at the United States Navy Veterans Association and that this Newstand have a totally different philosophy as to what it means to be an American than President Barack Obama has as to what it means to be an American.  We here at this Newstand and at the United States Navy Veterans Association have a different philosophy as to what the United States has stood for in the world in the past, a philosophy different from the current viewpoint of President Obama.  We here at this Newstand and at the United States Navy Veterans Association have a totally differently philosophy than President Obama as to what humanity stands for.  We here at this Newstand and at the United States Navy Veterans Association have a totally differently philosophy from President Obama as to what the United States of America should stand for in the future as to our foreign policy. 

Contrary to President Obama we here at this Newstand believe that the United States of America was created by Providence to light the lamp of freedom for all the world to see and that that is our mission and is our calling from Providence.  We believe that that was our mission and calling from Providence in 1774 and in 1776; is our calling today; and will be our calling from now until the time the cows come home.  We do not compromise, nor do we negotiate with people who are dictators.  We overthrow them and we bring the light of liberty to their people.  That is the same lamp of liberty that brings immigrants to our shores in ever growing numbers, the same lamp that those protestors, those innocent people in Iran who believe in us, and who do not believe in President Obama, are being shot at for in Tehran tonight.  This Association supports them and encourages them and this Association says that any President of United States of America who does not do the same is not an American. 

We have seen this week in international sports, the players for Iran wearing a white ribbon on their wrist which means that they support the moderate position in Iran, the moderate position which is and seeks to be in an alignment with the United States of America and what we have stood for in this particular article.  We have seen the people on Twitter and Facebook demonstrating on the streets of Iran, being shot down in the streets and murdered by the dictators that rule Iran, including this same bum, called by the President of United States, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who this same President of United States said he would welcome to come to his Inaugural in Washington.  We have seen these same people, the real people of Iran, on Twitter and on Facebook, referring to these same people in their signs as “Go-to-Hell, Dictator.” “ذهبت إلى جحيم, دكتاتورة”

Nothing could say it better than that for us, and if you think that Khatemi is the “Supreme Leader” of Iran, you are the same monster he is.  And we have to say that you are nothing more or less and deserve nothing more or less, than the same words exactly that the people of Iran put to him.

National Security Affairs Newstand Update

June 12, 2009

OBAMA ANNOUCES POLICIES MIRRORING NEWSTAND RECOMMENDATIONS  ON MPG REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN AUTOMOBILES

Newstand Staff: 

President Obama has recently announced administrative orders limiting the average mile per gallon requirements for US car manufacturers, which mirror  the proposals put forth by this Newstand in 2002 in our premier article "Sandstorm," to be found on the Homeport page, on how crude oil is running out in the world.  His Executive Order actually directs the Secretary of Transportation to come up with a recommendation for an average mile per gallon requirement of 35.5 mpg for the model year 2016 (light trucks are also included), which means the recommendation must go to Congress (which will likely approve, we predict here) sometime in 2014 or 2015. We applaud him in this regard because we feel that these average miles per gallon requirements on US motor vehicles sold in the United States, as we said way back then, (the Newstand 2002 Update actually called for average mpg requirements of 40 mpg by 2010, which we said would still not be enough to deal with the petroleum situation) is a matter of national security for the United States in ending its dependence upon foreign oil.  But mile-per-gallon edicts issued by the Executive Branch to a Cabinet member can never be a substitute for democratic legislation passed by the peoples' representatives after full consultation with the people. Nor should we ever forget, in this country, that if the demand of the people, including the demand of our soccer moms, is for stronger, larger and safer vehicles (which inherently are less fuel efficient) in the interests of protecting the lives and safety of American children from the chaos and mayhem evident today on many of our highways, streets and roads, rather than tiny little expensive cars made out of cardboard that the Europeans seem to favor in their quest to get away from higher gasoline prices (as opposed to standing up to the foreign oil moguls threatening them), then that free demand should be both honored and respected.

That free demand is neither honored nor respected in the President's proposed "Cap and Trade" bill currently before the House of Representatives. That bill has a diffferent concept in mind: the imposition of European style cars, European style energy ideas, European style ideas, period, on the American people, whether they like it or not (government from the top down, exactly like they do it in all the hoochi-koochi countries, which is exactly what our people came here in the first place, for the past two hundred years, to get away from), at a much greater expense to the American people per capita than they should be asked to pay. Instead of the Commander-in-Chief asking our people what they can pay to accomodate foreigners who are telling us how we are going to model our lives, our society, after them,, he should be asking those foreigners what they are going to pay when we tell them what to do, to reduce, not increase, our cost of living here.

At the same time, we also believe that there may be underestimated fossil fuels left under the ground or seas of countries to sustain consumer demand in the United States for gasoline for motor vehicles for an undetermined amount of time (chemical engineers only estimate how many degraded dinosaurs fossils (which is where crude oil comes from) are left underneath the surface of the earth; nobody actually knows), and  that under no circumstances should the United States be held hostage to the blackmail of any foreign government, inside or outside OPEC, which threatens us, or executes on that threat, to jack up the price of American gasoline at the pump, as a political matter to teach the United States to bend its knee or to bow to the foreign policy desires of that  government or governments which are, or may be, inimical to the national interests of United States.  This Newstand has consistently stood for the proposition that these foreigners, if they were operating inside the United States as a cartel, would be in felonious violation of the anti-trust laws of the United States, and, if that were the case, the United States Department of Justice would come down on them extremely hard, including their leadership, to put them away in prison for a long, long period of time.  We see no reason, other than shear hypocrisy on the part of the Administration in Washington, why Americans who commit white-collar crimes here, because they are easier to apprehend, are arrested and tried, as the Department of Justice is arguing that this should be currently, while at the same time that same Government is saying that foreign governments should go free from the full prosecution of our laws and/or the full military force of the United States of America brought against them, when they are seeking to harm the United States of America by acts of state-sponsored terror which, if they were committed within our borders by American citizens, would be prosecuted as severe felonies.  If Somali Muslims pirating our ships in Mid-East waters can be ordered by the Commander-in-Chief to have their heads blown off with .50 caliber machine guns by U.S. Navy Seals, we see no reason why the “pirates” in OPEC seeking to hijack our economy for their gain cannot have the same done to them.

We also want to applaud the President of the United States on his recent decision, almost forced on him by the military establishment of the Department of Defense, not to release photos of these low-life anti-American thugs who were water-boarded by US Armed Forces and CIA operatives, on the grounds, correctly, that such a release would cause great violence, and greater deaths, to US Armed Forces members currently serving in the War of Terror abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This policy position, however, is a flip flop on the part of the current Commander-in-Chief from the position he took previously that these pictures should be released, a position advocated by left wing members of his party, including the Attorney General of United States, Eric Holder, who demanded that these pictures be released in the interest of what they call “transparency”, but which in fact was in the interest of anti-Americanism. “Transparency” does not equal Americanism; read our lips: it may equal “Swedism,” where Sweden publishes online everybody’s tax return, but it does not equal, again, read our lips, Americanism.  It is the position of this Newstand that this flip-flop on the part of President Obama will only be one in a series of further flip-flops on national security and, within a month or two or less, we will see more flip-flops  in favor of substantive positions which degrade the United States of America, degrade the mission of our Armed Forces abroad in the national interest of the United States (which President Obama already degraded explicitly in his speech to our troops in Baghdad earlier this year), and which pull the U.S. down to the position where we are simply one little nation to be squeezed into the general roster of the United Nations General Assembly somewhere between Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. 

__________________________________________________________

June 17, 2009

OBAMA'S STIMULUS PACKAGE

For the Newstand:

There is a notion among American liberals that, given what occurred in the 1990’s with the fraudulent Ponzi scheme that was created within NASDAQ and to a lesser extent, the NY Stock Exchange, with the concurrence of the Clinton Administration, that with a paper growth in the American economy, and concomitant tax revenues which flow into the government Treasuries as a result of the that paper growth, that any amount of public debt can be paid off.

That is a false notion. That was then (during the Clinton Administration) and is now an outreach of the voo-doo economic ideas of the Administration in power.  It was voo-doo economics, 1993-2000, because the entire growth in tax revenue then  was based on a bubble economy covered fictitionally by the White House, which created no real production of new wealth.  All it created was a flow of money into phony companies which weren’t producing anything of real value whatsoever, and especially, then, those companies in the technology sector.  The American economy and the White House can create phoniness with propaganda, with relationship to “growth” of the American economy, when in fact it is nothing more than a bubble, and therefore, meaningless, growth in the economy, anytime they want to, from now until the time the cows come home, but none of this will change the basic economic facts that we just stated.

The last round of spending, including the "TARP" at the tail end of the Bush Administration, and the current amount of borrowing during the Obama Administration, each one approximately one trillion dollars apiece, is not to any extent or degree an investment in on-going productive-in-the-free-market assets that is going to pay off later with regard to the American economy.  Somebody later on is going to have to pay for this false monstrosity of economic thinking.  That payment has to either come out of higher taxes to pay for more debt, or it has got to come out of greater inflation by simply printing more money.  Either way the suffering of the American people may not become evident during a given eight year term of an American President who proposes these things, but at some point thereafter, the economic chickens are going to have to come home to roost. 

The bottom line is this, and this is the bottom line between the writers of this article and the Obama Admistration:  one of the two is a fundamentally mistaken as to the probable outcome of this "spend our way out of it" philosophy.

The position of this Newsstand is that we cannot spend our way out of a recession or a depression, with, admittedly, a large number of Americans hurting because of what the recession or depression has done to them personally, by reason of “borrowing our way out it” which in turn means, paying more taxes to pay for the debt that we are “borrowing” or by simply printing more money to pay for the spending, which causes inflation.  But we have to do one or both to economically repay the spending spree.  What we are left with, however, is a President of the United States who says I can do all of this and I will let the chips fall where they may after I am out of office.  It can’t be done and the Obama Admistration knows it can’t be done (President Obama is not stupid; he was President of the Harvard Law Review).  This is bad national security policy.  Coming from the standpoint of this Newstand, these intelligent people who are  activating these policies could not possibly be proposing these polices unless they themselves were willing to make fundamental economic mistakes for the sake of sheer "borrow and spend," "tax and spend," and "regulate and spend" idealogism.  And just because you personally may be a recipient of this “largesse,” you should not be grateful, or be deceived. 

While we are good at this Newstand of creating analogies, let’s create a new one:  Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned.  What we have here is a case where Nero created the situation for Rome to be burning, and then played his fiddle beforehand, realizing that when Rome burned, it would burn after he was gone from office.

President Obama and his minions have sowed the seeds of the destruction of our National Security with his so-called stimulus package and, to be fair to the Presidency of George W. Bush, at the tale end of that President’s tenure in 2008, President Bush did likewise.  The innocent American people, including generations yet unborn, will have to pay the price of reaping that whirlwind. 

_____________________________________________

May 4, 2009

THE NEWSTAND’S TAKE ON THE FOREIGN AND MILITARY POLICIES OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTATION DURING THE FIRST 100 DAYS.

Newstand Staff:

The Obama Administration and this Newstand both recognize that President Obama is the elected Commander-in-Chief of the United States, and therefore we present this material and our opinion with the greatest deference to the Office of the Presidency.

The policies we discuss here have come fast and furious during the first 100 days of this Administration.

Many of these policies at this point in time are merely public pronouncements and do not represent actual activities of policy as opposed to statements of principle, but nevertheless are “policies” this Newstand and an overwhelming majority of the Association’s membership oppose:

We do not believe that “making nice” as a matter of style or rhetoric with foreigners who hate the United States of America makes any sense as a matter of substantive policy; nor do we believe that that sort of approach will achieve anything substantive in furthering the goals of the United States or the world as a whole.  We do believe that furthering the goal of the United States in the world is a patriotic policy, and is a policy in keeping with the national interests of the United States. "Meddling" in the internal affairs of an anti-American dictatorship is part of our calling from Providence, as President Obama himself speaks to when he refers to the "universality" of human freedom. That is in fact why we fight wars, and for no other reason, and why our troops die in combat as they have, consistently, since the time of our Revolution. There is no "national interest" of the United States which is, or should be,  divisible from the universality of human freedom.

If the USG wants, for example, in the upcoming presidential elections in the Iran run by the dictatorial mullah-crowd which actually runs that nation, in which we predict those same dictators will rig the election to claim that the anti-American thug Ahmebenijad has once again won, those CIA agents now still living should be preparing for street riots on the part of the real Iranian people who want an end to theocratic thuggery, hangings of Iranians because they oppose the regime, and a new and positive relationship with the United States, to begin to hand out signs in Parsi for those demonstrations saying: "  آورد به شاه " 

That will aggravate those mullahs no end once those riots start, as we predict they will, and will cause the mullah-crowd to overreact. That is advocacy in the cause of universal human freedom, and it is the kind of thing Ronald Reagan would have done.

The Newstand does not believe that the United States is simply one little country to be fitted into some sort of larger world order somewhere between Afghanistan and Zimbabwe in the roster of the United Nations General Assembly.  The Newstand does not believe in a one world currency.  We do not believe that Europe has a leading role to play in the development of the world, other than that it has a leading role to play as a partner with the United States, providing Europeans recognize that the United States is the world’s only superpower.  The Newstand believes that the United States is the best country on earth and that no other nation or their philosophy of life or government matches up with our philosophy as to what government should constitute or what society should constitute or what people should constitute.  Unlike the Europeans, we believe that appeasement of our enemies, people who hate us because of who we are, will only telegraph to those enemies an apparent weakness and therefore have the consequence of them striking violently at us until they get exactly what they want within our society. We believe that that has already been true with regard to many European countries that have appeased the jihadist terrorists in the war on terror.  We believe that there is a War on Terror and we believe that that War on Terror is not just a war on jihadist terrorists but is also a war that Western civilization should carry out globally on all terrorists worldwide.  These include the American native born terrorists (Timothy McVeigh et al.) who carried out the bombing at the Oklahoma City Federal Building during the Clinton Administration.  These terrorists were home grown terrorists. They were right-wing terrorists.  But they used the same philosophy of terror that the jihadists use throughout the world. The thing that makes these people terrorists as opposed to revolutionaries, is that they aim violence at innocent men, women and children, who are not combatants and do not wear the uniforms of a particular country’s armed forces. They seek to achieve their own agenda by reason of instilling fear in the heart of a civilian population, and they use murderous violence against that civilian population to achieve political dominance in a particular country.  This is totally different from what the revolutionaries in the Massachusetts militia did at Concord and Lexington in 1774.  Those folks fired on uniformed British soldiers seeking to impose a political will on us from a country far across the sea in London, by a self appointed King in London who claimed a God given right to rule over them; to deny their basic human freedoms, including the freedom of privacy in their own houses, the freedom to worship as they saw fit, the freedom to speak as they saw fit in open and civil society, and the freedom that they should not be taxed or pay homage to anyone unless they had democratic representation with regard to those taxes.  That made them revolutionaries and not terrorists.  Those Massachusetts militiamen were fundamentally different, as Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel has said of the jihadists, from the “wild eyed radicals” of the Islamist world who seek to impose their will on us, on Western civilization, on America, on Europe, by the use of sneaky acts of terror designed to kill ununiformed men, women and children who are clearly not combatants.  These people cannot be appeased and should not be appeased.  It is they who attacked us, not the other way around.  Making nice with them by reason of rhetoric is not only anti-American; it is the act of an individual who does not understand what he is doing as a professional with regard to the foreign or military policy of the United States of America. 

No President of the United States or Commander-in-Chief should bow down to the King of Saudi Arabia, or to any king.  Our people, all of our people, came to this country to get away from the idiocies and slavishness of what was occurring in the old world, wherever that old world was.  We came here to avoid that slavishness, that fawning belief that the old world held out, that power was the highest form of the state and was the idea and ideal by which people should be ruled.  We came here, all of our people, to get away from that ridiculous and idiotic nonsense that is still the ruling notion in almost every single country on the face of the globe except the United States of America.  We need to stand up as a people, and the President needs to stand up as a man, for that notion, and not to pander to anyone, our enemies or our friends, to stand for the notion that those fundamental ideas make us the best country on the face of the earth.  Our ideals are America, and not as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez recently, “yesterday’s news.”

As soon as the  President announced, through his new Department of Defense, that we were eliminating from the official vocabulary of the United States Government, the words or phrases “global war on terror”,  and the “War on Terror,” and that we were going to withdraw our Forces from Iraq; and as soon as he made statements, as he did in Bagdad recently that he opposed the previous mission of our United States Armed Forces in Iraq, but that at the same time appreciated what our United States Armed Forces had done in Iraq, the level of violence of  Al Qaeda in Iraq statistically picked up substantially and dramatically.  Since he has made those announcements, there have been more bombings, more car bombings, more violence and more death and destruction in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, primarily directed at innocent Iraqi citizens, than there were during the period of the Bush surge in Iraq.  Those are facts.  And that is exactly what the Association and this Newstand predicted would occur.  Those things are already occurring.

And in case you don’t understand what’s going on in Iraq, it’s this: Al Qaeda in Iraq is stepping up its attacks on Iraqis not Americans, to tell the former, "We’re coming" (a message not lost on the fearful Iraqi government), and at the same time to tell the Obama Administration, “We will, give your troops plenty of time to leave, now that we know you are leaving.” Regardless of whether the overthrowal of Saddam was or was not a good idea, the United States was involved in Iraq and has been involved in Iraq in a noble mission to secure Iraq as a democracy in the Middle East and as a government standing for stability in the Middle East as opposed to the instability that is fostered by Al Qaeda oriented state governments such as Saddam’s, such as the government of the Sudan, and such as the Taliban government in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, we point out today, are doing an “end run” around US Forces in Afghanistan and are now attempting, to close in on the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad, to take over there, along with trying to take over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. This military advance, which could easily be successful, is a proximate cause of the Obama Administration’s declaration of weakness in Iraq and the Administration’s coddling of anti-American enemies in the third world, and the refusal to support pro-American governments in those countries (Consider, e.g., the Carter Administration’s withdraw of support for the Shah of Iran, circa 1978, and the concomitant mess we have in Iraq today.)    These military actions by the Al Quaedists worldwide are fundamentally why it is totally correct to call the war on terror a global war on terror and why it is fundamentally false and inaccurate to call it anything else, or to call it different from that.

We are not sure that President Obama, with regard to increasing U.S. troop strength to a very limited degree in Afghanistan, is anything other than halfheartedly committed to even in the war in Afghanistan against the Jihadist terror that lurks in the heart of most of the wild eyed Islamists that inhabit that particular country, and also live in the surrounding Muslim world.  President Obama has ordered his new Defense Department to restructure their thinking and their vocabulary with regard to the war in Afghanistan to “tone down” US goals in Afghanistan.  We have no idea what that means and no reasonable commentator on foreign or military policy in the United States has any idea   what that means, including anybody currently in the Department of Defense. The   United States of America does not win wars by “toning down” the goals of our military policy. We win wars by reason of establishing the goals that Franklin D. Roosevelt established with regard to World War II:  the unconditional surrender and/or the unconditional destruction of the enemy.  Nobody in the Roosevelt Administration suggested that we should “tone down” or negotiate our policy with to Adolf Hitler once he attacked us and declared war on us, or once Imperial Japan attacked us and declared war on us.  The policy was unconditional surrender: the destruction of their governmental entities as they knew it and the reconstruction of their societies to appreciate true democracy as opposed to their libelous, slanderous and murderous transfiguration of what democracy meant, by which we mean the society and government of Tojo and the society and government of Adolf Hitler thought they meant by their use of the word “democracy”.  Hamas is no democracy.  Al Qaeda is no democracy, Hezbollah is no democracy. Kim Jong Il is no democracy, Ahmebenijad is no democracy.  Fidel Castro is no democracy, he’s a murderer. Daniel Ortega is no democracy. And Hugo Chavez certainly is no democracy. The reason they are not democracies and never will be is because they advocate the nationalistic right of their people, who substantively believe in their ideology, to trample on everybody else’s rights in the world.  The reason they are no democracy and can never be a democracy is because they do not afford the human right to every American in “their” country to have as much freedom of speech, as much freedom of belief, as much freedom of worship, as much freedom of travel and association, in their country as they espouse that they have the right to demand in the rest of the world. They hate us because of what we are and who were are and they will not rest until we are put into the peace of our graves.  That is the only peace that they understand.  For an American President to play with them; to make nice with them; to think that he can achieve through rhetoric and style some change in the fundamental substance of what they seek constitutes a grave and imminent danger.

The foreign policy of the United States needs to be based on substance and not on style.  We might be able to gain a few minutes here and a few minutes there, maybe a few years here and a few years there on the stage of world history, based on style and rhetoric.  We might be able to gain, and we saw this during the Presidency of John F. Kennedy, a true American patriot and a true naval hero, a degree of favorable polls with regard to the common people of the third world, who certainly do live in a degree of poverty unknown in the United States of America, a favorable opinion toward the United States in terms of those polices.  Nevertheless, and we saw this during President Kennedy’s Presidency, that did not last and it won’t last because the fundamental powers that be that come out of this sort of chaos in the third world that these inhabitants of the third world basically bring upon themselves,  throw up  dictators who basically preach hatred, and hatred is a very powerful force.  To think that one can deal with that degree of hatred with mere rhetoric and with style and presentation or a handsome or charismatic President is a fundamental flaw in our foreign policy and it is a serious mistake.

North Korea, with its missile tests, is a dire and immediate threat to the United States, with missiles which when tipped with nuclear weapons, which North Korea already has, can already reach Alaska and Hawaii and, soon with further testing, will be able to reach further into the continent of the United States.  There can be no doubt that the dictator of North Korea is also a madman capable of launching a nuclear strike on the mainland of the United States just as an act of vengeance for some wrong that he feels has been caused to his dictatorial viewpoint of the world by the United States.  It is a concern for the United States to allow such a madman to exist at the helm of such weapons and it is ridiculous for the United States to permit such a madman to possess such weapons of mass destruction.  This Newstand holds nothing wrong with an American foreign policy of the carrot and the stick.  The carrot can always be held out to people who disagree with us as foreigners.  But there is a time when those same people, after they spit in your face year in and year out, decades in and decades out, that we come to the understanding that these people hate us because of who and what we are and that they are not going to rest until we are destroyed, and that they have the capability to do that through modern technology.  At that point our American backs are against the wall and we do not have any other options other than the stick.  As Teddy Roosevelt said when he was President, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.”  There is a time when the stick needs to be used.  That time is now with regard to North Korea’s capability of launching by rocket a nuclear weapon against the United States of America.

As Prime Minster Netanyahu of Israel said recently with regard to Iran, Israel will not allow, under his administration, for Iran to develop a nuclear rocket facility capable of launching a nuclear weapon against Israel and that Israel will take unilateral action to prevent that from happening, if nobody will assist them.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Netanyahu has said.   And it should be the same policy of the United States, as apposed to appeasement with total nutcases and low lifes like the Grand Council of the Iranian Mullahs and President Ahmebenijad.  These people are clear cut nutcases who blame and brutalize the United States for everything and it is a nutcase policy for the United States of America to try to appease them.

As the Association has repeatedly said on this website over the past ten years, and these quotations can be found by going no further back than the public resolutions of the Board of Directors of the National Association contained on the Homepage, the existence of a substantial deficit in the budget of the United States and the existence of a substantial figure with regard to the national debt of the United States both, and separately, constitute a grave, serious and immediate threat  to the national security of United States. We repeat those positions here.  The counter argument being made on the other side, and it is being made by the Obama Administration, does have some statistical merit to it.  That other argument is that the percentage of national debt to the gross domestic product of the U.S., even with the largest possible estimate of President’s Obama current budgetary proposals, is less than the percentage of national debt to the gross domestic product which occurred during the World War II years.  That argument has merit.  The problem with the argument is that the World War II years were the only period in time that that statistic can arguably be held true for. In World War II we faced an immediate foreign threat to our existence from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, which we had absolutely no choice as a matter of national security other than to apply our dollars to spend against.  The other difference is that we applied those dollars and debt (most of the latter being money Americans were loaning their own government) during that period of time to build up the Armed Forces of the United States to make them the mightiest Armed Forces that the world had ever seen, and we also applied our dollars at that time to the military within the United States as an investment, which investment could then be applied, after the war was over, to peace-time applications for all those young men and women who did return to the United States alive, to begin new lives with  new families, with new demands on our domestic economy, all of which caused the boom that occurred in United States post-1945. What did not occur with regard to those expenditures during WWII, regardless of whether it did not occur because of design or by fortuitous circumstance, is that trillions of dollars of borrowed-from-foreigners federal monies were thrown out helter-skelter into a domestic economy to pay for covering every scheme of domestic waste, fraud and abuse imaginable.  What did occur during the Roosevelt Administration during WWII was that the expenditures were focused on a particular goal which was achieved and which then thereafter had a consequence, expected or otherwise, of creating a boom in the American economy.  This is quite a different approach from the one which is being taken by President’s Obama’s budgets.  We have already analyzed them above but we will also say this:  They are not an investment in anything. They are merely ameliorative payments being handed out as if they were some form of welfare to numerous classes of people and numerous categories of people who are, and this Newstand says this sympathetically, hurting by reason by the current recession.  They are not investments the way the investment was being made in the American defense machine by the Roosevelt Administration during WWII.  The fact is that the Roosevelt Administration made great expenditures into the domestic economy wild-eyed during the period 1933 through 1940. The fact is, statistically, prior to our entry into WWII  on December 7, 1941, the economy of the United States was not, to any substantial degree, better off then when President Roosevelt took office in March 1933. Today we are seeing the Obama Administration proposing in its military budgets across the board increases in base pay for our soldiers, sailors, Marines and Air Force personnel, and it goes without saying that the Association supports those increases in base pay.  But at the same time the Obama Administration is cutting the overall manpower of our United States Armed Forces, and is also supporting substantial cuts in the Armed Forces’ technological weapons systems, including cuts in our missile defense system, the very missile defense system, that protects us against rogue states like North Korea and Iran. Those cuts do not make sense from a defense standpoint. They do not make sense from a standpoint of protecting the national security of United States; and they do not make sense from the standpoint of the federal government’s role in supporting our economy through one of the most vital American sectors of the economy, the defense industry.

From the Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2009, and other private intelligence sources relied on by this Newstand, both the Government of Russia and the Government of the Peoples’ Republic of China have, independent of each other, separately created computer malware which permits them to instantaneously take down the electrical grid of the United States of America or substantial portions thereof.  This happened on President’s Obama watch while he was making nice with both these governments.  These actions are not the acts of friendly nations; they are an act of war.  The electrical grid of the United States is much more important to the functioning on the United States of America than the electrical grid of Russia is to the functioning of Russia, or the electrical grid of China is to the functioning of China.  The threat presented by these sometimes amicable, and sometimes hostile, governments is as serious and as imminent and as dangerous as any nuclear launch capability of North Korea or the nuclear launch capability of the Government of Iran.  This is not simply a case of mutual assured destruction; it is a deliberate act of a particular foreign government directed exclusively at the United States of America.  It cannot and should not be tolerated as a matter of American foreign policy.

And it is part, by example,  of a larger problem of the Obama Administration foreign policy, with regard to appeasing foreign governments and entities  which are inherently hostile to American interests, or to use a different phrase, to let American foreign policy drift into another world where we just don’t care and where we are then attacked again as we were on September 11,  2001, in an act of unmitigated murder of more innocent civilians than were ever killed on American soil theretofore, by a foreign entity which hated, and still hates, the United States.

_____________________________________________________________

May 1, 2009

Vice –President Joe Biden’s Speech in North Carolina on Foreign Policy - “Dead Wrong”

Newstand Staff:

Vice President Joe Biden is dead wrong when he says we are in a stronger posture today during the Obama Administration with regard to facing threats posed to us abroad than in the Bush Administration.  It is true, to give Vice-President Biden credit, we were stretching thin in regard to U.S. Armed Forces’ manpower during the Bush Administration in the wars we were fighting overseas, and that is something that the Association complained about to Congress and to the Bush Administration continuously during the eight years of the Bush Administration.  But we are not seeing anything in the Obama Administration other than stretching the manpower and womanpower of the United States Armed Forces even more thinly today.  The presentation that the Vice-President made at the Pikeville Pleasant Grove Fire Department with regard to us having virtually no respect in other parts of the world has nothing to do with the substance of United States foreign policy.  Moreover, Vice President Biden is not talking in terms of policy about true respect; what he is talking about, instead, is “likeability” based on the style of presentation of a particular President of the United States, including, but not limited to, bowing and scraping to self-appointed Muslim kings and “cool” gangster-originated styles of handshakes with thugs like Hugo Chavez.  Those are two totally separate and distinct concepts.  Respect is engendered by the substance of a particular country’s foreign policy.  Likeability of a particular President is an entirely differently concept.  They are not the same.  And they never will be the same.  Ronald Reagan responded years ago to the Vice President’s conceptual analysis best, when he said with regard to other countries in the world and as to how they perceived the United States of America, that there was a choice for other countries in the world, as to whether they would love us or whether they would respect us.  President Reagan then said that he would choose respect over love every single time.  President Reagan was right as a conceptual matter relating to our foreign policy and Vice President Biden, to use a phrase coined by him, is “dead wrong” as to the same concept

.

[Vice-President Biden was interviewed as to these matters on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.”]

______________________________________________________________

Newstand Staff

President Obama attempted to build a new coalition around his new mission for the United States Armed Forces in Afghanistan during his travel to the G20 summit in Europe. 

He failed. 

After a very reasonable, and also pandering, speech to the Europeans in Paris, asking them for their support, the Europeans responded by saying that they would not provide any new substantial forces for the mission of Freedom in Afghanistan, a mission that both this Newstand and the Association have talked about frequently on both the War on Terror Newsstand and also the National Security Newstand over the past eight years.  President Obama in his speech in Paris alluded to the actual fact that the Al Quaidists will strike again in a substantial way against Western Civilization and that they will strike in Europe instead of in the United States. What President Obama did not allude to was why the latter was so.  It is not because of the geographical proximity of the forces of Al Qaeda to Europe versus the geographical proximity of the forces of Al Qaeda to the United States; it is because, instead, Europe has substantively shown an attitude of appeasement toward Al Qaeda, and that the Al Qaedists therefore feel a sense of weakness on the part of Europe toward them.  Bullies and criminals strike to where they feel your weakest point is; and they continue to probe that point.  Nevertheless, Europe has stubbornly refused President Obama’s request that they increase their forces in Afghanistan.  This is only natural.  Europe has seen this same President hypocritically withdraw our US Armed Forces from Iraq, and Europe senses that as a sign of weakness on the part of United States, and senses that the current Government of the United States is not going to actively pursue any further wars in the Middle East, pretty much what President Obama later announced was part of the “Obama Doctrine.”  Therefore it would make logical sense for any head of government in Europe or otherwise not to agree to do otherwise.    It is hypocritical and illogical for someone to say we are ceasing and desisting from the war in Iraq against the Al Qaeda and at the same time say that we are increasing that war in Afghanistan.  And whatever else we have to say about the Europeans, they certain are logical, most oftentimes to a prissy fault.

The War on Terror is exactly what it is, a War on Terror.  It is not simply a war on jihadists.  It is a war on all terrorists worldwide.  The readers of this website may remember that the Bush Administration initially coined the term “War on Terrorism,” whereupon the Association coined the phrase “War on Terror,” whereupon the Bush Administration adopted that term.  US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld then originated the term “Global War on Terror” (GWT), which in fact it is. The Obama Administration has recently banned all those terms from official USG terminology.  Nevertheless this Newstand and this Association will continue to use those terms because they are factual , and the denial of those terms constitute a material misrepresentation of fact as to what is going on in the world.  One cannot win forth for the cause of the United States of America by simply changing terminology; by simply changing semantics; nor can one win forth for the cause of the United States of America foreign policy by reason of the style of rhetoric alone.  Foreign policy requires substance.  Not by simply “leading by example,” as to good works Americorps does in Southside Chicago, but by really leading substantively in the world, even though that is tough. The enemies of the United States such as the people who hold power in Pyongyang who are doing their darn best to test missiles which can strike Alaska and Hawaii, and which can be tipped with nuclear weapons, and the people who hold power in Iran, who just sentenced an innocent U.S. citizen female to eight years on trumped up charges of spying just because she was a news reporter for America’s National Public Radio, are not stupid, They are not simply going to agree with American proposals simply because a President of the United States or his State Department “makes nice” with them in terms of speeches and style.  Enemies who hate us because of who we are and not because of what we do, are not gong to change their policies simply because the President of the United States or his State Department has been ordered to make nice with them as a matter of style. 

President Obama was entirely correct in his speech in Paris when he said Europe was likely to be attacked next versus the United States being attacked next by the Al Qaeda.  He did not elaborate why.  We have elaborated why in this article.  But we also say to the Europeans, when the Al Qaedists are done attacking you, they are going to come against us as Americans next, and we say this to them and also to our fellow Americans:   Appeasement gains you no ground with evil people who are constituted as such to destroy you and your entire lifestyle, and that certainly applies to the leadership of the North Korean Communist Party,  and applies to all of the jihadists and their brethren in the entirety of the Muslim third world, and applies certainly to the leadership of the current Iranian Republic and every person who believes in them and everybody who votes for them.  These enemies of everything we Americans call dear, and especially freedom, will rest and seek peace with us only when they have the peace of the dead, meaning they will seek peace with us or compromise with us only when we are dead and their tyranny rules throughout the world. There is only one answer to them substantively as a matter of American  foreign policy and that is the exact same answer that President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill gave to Nazi Germany in World War II:  we demand your unconditional surrender, we demand the unconditional surrender of all your ideologies, and we will go into your countries, as we did in World War II, and reconstruct your societies in a manner in which you no longer seek tyranny over the freedom of the individual men, women and children either in your country or in any other country on the face of this globe.  And whether you claim to be elected by a democratic majority of true low life and evil people in your country is totally irrelevant to us, just as it was irrelevant to us, and should be irrelevant to us, that Hitler was in fact elected democratically by a plurality of the German people in the 1930’s.  United States foreign policy should be based on the substantive principle that Freedom applies throughout the world.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  said, “The Freedom of one man in one country is the Freedom of all men and women in every country, and when you take away the Freedom of one man in any place, you are taking my Freedom away from me.”  To rephrase that, if an American cannot have the exact same rights of freedom in Iran as he or she does in the United States, then he is not free.   If Iranians or people who live under the tyranny of the Taliban or of Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, which says people in those countries have got to operate in a certain way to substantively bring themselves in line with the political party that rules that place, and that Americans or foreigners do not have their human rights of free speech or of free travel into those places to say and do as they please, then neither the residents of those places or any American is free.  That is the fundamental doctrine behind our Declaration of Independence; that is the fundamental doctrine behind the Constitution of the United States of America.  That is the doctrine that makes us the greatest country on earth. And that is the substantive doctrine that must go behind all of our foreign polices.  Not style.  That’s substance.

Anything else, regardless of whether it comes from our President or Commander-in-Chief, to the contrary, including the recently announced “Obama Doctrine,” is not keeping with the traditions of American values and the American way of life. 

____________________________________________________________