Presidential Character - Does It Matter?

George Washington was one of our more Godly, righteous and morally upstanding men that served as a General and President. Testimonies abound to his piety. Here are some quotes on his character: “I never knew so constant an attendant in church as Washington.”- Rev. Massey. Nelly, his daughter, said, “I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian.” General Porterfield stated he, “found him on his knees, engaged in his morning devotions.” Alexander Hamilton punctuated this statement by adding, “Such was his most constant habit.” Hundreds of testimonials attribute a moral piety and strong, sound character to Washington. (All of the above quotes can be sourced from George Washington’s Sacred Fire.)

I have been following the Republican Candidates in the run-up to the Iowa Caucus; I have been amused by the mudslinging going on as part of their efforts to separate themselves from the others. Aside from the theatre that they present, it has raised an intriguing question, “Does character matter?”

Americans have always been a people that hold their leaders to a higher standard of comportment than we would normally hold each other in the everyday work, live, and play world that we inhabit. We have, for generations, demanded moral purity from our Presidents, and yet, there are discrepancies that defy explanation.

Gary Hart and John Edwards were two Presidential contenders who were discarded by the electorate because of their philandering, while men like Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy were unfaithful to their spouses and seemingly fulfilled the demands of the Office of the President. Kennedy was assassinated, while Clinton had to survive Impeachment proceedings. President Grover Cleveland, while a lawyer, was presumed to have fathered a child out of wedlock. However, a review of Cleveland’s life and behavior reveals a man of sound moral principle who was recognized for his honesty and integrity by both Republicans and Democrats. As President, Cleveland had a remarkable career that would rate him as a success.

President Jimmy Carter was a man of unquestioned moral standing and very religious in his beliefs. As a President though, he was,“considered a better man than he was a president.” His inexperience, indecisiveness, and ineffective responses to domestic challenges in the American economy have relegated him to a poor ranking as a President. Contrast this to his successor, Ronald Reagan, who portrayed strength, a positive attitude, charisma, and a will to make America strong again. Reagan ranks high as a President and garners praise and affection, even today, at the mention of his name. The thing about Reagan though, that seems to be overlooked, is he was a man who, at one time, had been previously married and divorced; and this at a time, in American society, when divorce was a taboo.

Today, in the lead-up to the 2012 elections, we have a President who hasn’t received any vetting to the depth or degree that the Republican candidates have received. We know absolutely nothing about Barack Obama when it comes to his personal background. We have no reliable information regarding his educational performance, his previous life before Michelle, or his friends. Regarding the Republican candidates, we have two candidates, in Santorum and Bachmannn, who have stellar personal backgrounds, are staunch conservatives, and cannot seem to catch fire with the Republican base. This conservative pair, with pristine personal credentials, offers a strong conservative vision for America and, yet, run in the single digits in the polls. Romney seems to be like one of those light beers that we want to drink, but it’s low on calories and substance, and  leaves us wanting more. Trying to get a grip on Romney is like trying to nail jello to a wall. While a man of high character, he is also a moderate who has flip-flopped on some major conservative voting issues, passed a liberal health care law in Massachussetts, and tries to be all things to all people. Rick Perry hasn’t had any major character issues, but he has had a mixed bag of performance. He has brought a better employment picture to Texas, yet his big turn-off is his stance on immigration. Ron Paul shows some sense when it comes to the domestic budget and money policy. However, in this writer’s opinion, he’s a dangerous liberal on foreign policy, believes America brought on 9-11, and wants to gut the U.S. military. He runs to the left of President Obama, and that shows how far-off base he truly is. Now we come to Newt Gingrich; Gingrich was, at one time, Speaker of the House. He lead the push that helped balance the budget, cut taxes, implemented welfare reforms, and forced Bill Clinton to adopt the Republican platform. He also took liberal stances on health care reform, global warming, and received substantial amounts of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also has two previous marriages that ended in divorce, both exacerbated due to unfaithfulness.

Republicans have some clear choices. They can choose a liberal such as Paul, a moderate like Romney, strong conservative purists such as Santorum and Bachmann, or they can choose a man like Perry or Gingrich, largely conservative in their beliefs, and in Gingrich’s case, a man with some personal baggage.

What I find interesting is this; while I believe Americans prefer their leaders to be more in the mold of a George Washington, a man of high unquestioned character, I also believe that the American voter will, in exceptional times, overlook character failings because they are worried or fearful about their current life circumstances. In those moments, it becomes a “gut level” vote of who they believe can turn things around and can get America back onto surer footing domestically and internationally. Who can argue that we don’t live in exceptional times filled with worry and doubt? In tumultuous times such as we live in now, it comes down to this – Who do you trust to bring America back to its previous greatness, to make things better for all Americans?

Submitted by; Joe O'Neill

Strait of Hormuz: Is this Obama's "Gulf of Sidra "?

During the late 1970s, the country of Libya and its dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi (recently exterminated), decided to create a 12 mile extension of its territorial waters in the Gulf of Sidra. Qaddafi thought it was a great opportunity to take advantage of a weak and inept US President- Jimmy Carter. Carter was, at the time, dealing with a hostage crisis in Iran, a fuel crisis, and soaring inflation in the US. Qaddafi declared that anyone crossing his so-called” line of death” would meet an immediate and forceful Libyan military response. Unfortunately, at that time, our timid, weak president made the determination that he did not want to press the issue.

Fortunately, the feeble Carter Administration was thrown out of office and Ronald Reagan assumed the office of president in January of 1981. He immediately decided that he would not tolerate any of Qaddafi’s bluster. In August of 1981 he directed a large naval force to take up station off the coast of Libya. Qaddafi made the ill-fated decision to test this new president’s metal.

On the morning of 19 August, 1981, Qaddafi sent multiple strike aircraft into the sky to conduct mock runs and attacks on US aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean. They were immediately met by Navy F-14 “Tomcat” fighters. Most of the Libyan Air Force turned tail and ran. However, two Libyan fighter pilots, made the ill-advised decision to fire an air-to-air missile at one of our F-14s, which fortunately missed. However, our F-14s immediately engaged the Libyan fighter aircraft and quickly flamed them both.

Eight years later, with less than two weeks to go in Reagan's presidency, Qaddafi once again attempted to test Reagan’s steadfastness. The results were the same US Navy- 2, Libyan Air Force- 0!

Recently, Iran is doing a little saber rattling of its own in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's Navy Chief is warning that his country will close the waterway and cut off oil flow out of the gulf. The Strait is only 34 miles wide and approximately 20 to 30% of the world's oil shipments pass through this narrow channel. The threat of shutting the oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz has already driven the price per barrel of oil up over 100 dollars.

Obama has been pretty quick to compare himself to Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. His actions are better associated with his incompetent democrat predecessor Jimmy Carter. I think it's time he took a page from Reagan's book and demonstrated to the Iranians our ability to militarily dominate the Strait of Hormuz. It's time for decisive action! Obama should issue orders to the SecDef, instructing him that the first ship or plane that approaches any of our Naval or merchant shipping with hostile intent is to be obliterated!

Don't hold your breath. Obama, much like Carter, has spent most of his time coddling, caving into and bowing down to evil tyrants, dictators and terrorists. I expect that ambiguous orders will be delivered to our Navy captains and they will be left to make rapid, life and death decisions with poor direction from their commander-in-chief. This, in the end, may cost American lives.

Submitted By Warlord 6

I got 15 kids & 3 Babydaddys-someone`s gonna pay for me & my kids too.wmv

15 Kid Welfare Mom: "Somebody Owes Me"

Click here for the original story .... below is the follow-up

Is Ron Paul Capable of Providing for the Common Defense?

In an earlier article I posited that presidential candidate Ron Paul is dangerous in his views on foreign policy. In this article, I will examine, in more detail, why I believe this to be true.

Paul has expressed his desire to gut the military,  has also shown persistent reluctance to use the military, or to even spell out under what conditions he'd be willing to defend the United States. A Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to protect the citizenry, per the Constitution Paul loudly proclaims to support. Ron Paul's foreign policy tenets need to be more closely examined against the backdrop of some real world scenarios now occurring.

Paul's supporters portray him as non-interventionist. This is the first thing Ron Paul proposes about his foreign policy - non-intervention. This is just another way of saying Isolationist. An example of this non-intervention is Paul advocating for leaving the Iranians and the Mexican Drug Cartels alone. This is dangerous policy. I will explain why later. Paul's "hand's off" policies are actually no different than the current Obama Administration's policies toward Iran and the Cartels. To choose to do nothing is to make a choice.

Sanctions have been proposed as an answer to Iran, and are summarily rejected as ineffective by Congressman Paul...I disagree. South Africa and their "Apartheid" policy was dismantled because of foreign sanctions. Sanctions usually have a better desired result when supported by most, if not all, nations. The reason they haven't worked with North Korea is because of China's continued support. The proposed sanctions on Iran would have a higher probability of working because what is being proposed is to sanction banks and companies that do business with the Central Bank of Iran, the main financier of the Iranian government. Most of Western Europe is ready to do this, but again, the Obama Administration is dragging its feet. By impinging their money supply, of which 80% of its exports are oil and gas related, the drop in business would strangle Iran. The internal unrest this would bring would help create a climate of political change such as we witnessed two years ago. At that time, the Obama Administration refused to speak up in support of the Iranian people who marched in the streets for democracy. Here are the Iranian people, who desire democracy, and our government wouldn't support them. Yet we backed the Arab Spring that toppled three countries governments and has served to advance the Anti-American Muslim Brotherhood in its efforts to acquire power in the Middle East. What is ironic is that we have advanced the radical Islamic agenda, and are proud of having done that, while rejecting a nation of people who truly desire a more democratic government.

Iran is not on a par with a nation such as Imperial Japan was, in its reach militarily. Sanctions did provoke Japan to attack us. Japan was, in that era, unlike Iran today, a world class military power. The impact Iran has, militarily, is economically driven. They can make oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz a problem, rattling international markets and driving up the price of oil for awhile. Their proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, can create similar problems by stirring up Mid-East issues with Israel. But, over a long period of time, Iran isn't equipped to sustain a military response such as Japan was able to do - unless they acquire a nuclear weapon. That is a game changer that cannot be overstated enough.

In the meantime, consider this: Iran and Venezuela are in close cooperation with each other. There is a growing body of evidence that Iran, with Venezuela's help, is conducting military exercises and ops in our hemisphere. Evidence is also coming forth of an attempt to ally with the Mexican Drug Cartels to place agents near or inside America for the purpose of expanding the drug trade and implementing cyber warfare upon our government. Iran's terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, are currently major players in the Venezuelan and Mexican drug trade of financing and shipping drugs to the United States and Europe.

Place this in the context of the recent Iranian attack on the British Embassy, the attempted assassination of the Saudi Ambassador on our own soil and, as stated above, its expanding influence in Latin America, and it's easy to see that they are already at war with us. There is definitely a linkage of criminal organizations, terrorist groups, and rogue governments coalescing against the United States; and the Obama Administration is sitting idly by doing little to nothing. All of this, by itself, is disturbing. When you factor in the stated foreign policy objectives of a Ron Paul Presidency, it is an inescapable conclusion that Paul's foreign policy would run to the left of Barack Obama's. Then too, the issues of the ever increasing military power of China, and Russia with its nuclear arsenal, are topics that Congressman Paul hasn't adequately explained.

With the advent of the Internet's capability to marshal the power of a society's people, and it's unquestioned ability to spread information, the United States must be prepared to meet any crisis at a moment's notice, both conventional and unconventional. Who could have predicted all of the unrest we've witnessed in the last ten years? The rise of Islamic Jihad and terrorists who brought us 9-11? The Arab Spring?
In just a matter of months our government has had to switch its focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, to Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Iran, and Japan. Today's challenges are more apt to be instantaneous and unpredictable than pro forma, as they were, in the Cold War of the 50's to 90's. Our military today is roughly half the size it was during the Reagan Presidency, and yet, the demands upon it are increasing while we continue to downsize in a world that is becoming more unstable and volatile.

I honestly believe that the best way to engage these challenges is to expand our military, be prepared to engage in new military technologies that will protect our nation, and to become more involved and coherent in our foreign policy, including appropriate sanctions, to prevent nations such as Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. All of these foreign policy positions are ones Congressman Paul has continuously rejected.
Based upon the evidence presented, Congressman Paul would not be the best suited to protect this great nation of ours. His non-interventionist policies would only serve to embolden our enemies and place us in greater peril.

At this moment, sanctions may be the only way to contain Iran, short of war. We all should fear a nuclear armed Iran. Congressman Paul has stated his willingness to let Iran acquire nuclear status. I am also fairly certain that the Israeli's will have something to say about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. That's a topic for another day.

Submitted by:

Joe O'Neill

Fast and Furious – Obama's Watergate

By Warlord 6

Fast and furious was a gunrunning operation arranged by the Obama Administration. The cover story concocted by the administration was that it would allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms (BATFE) the ability to track assault rifles and their movement from the United States into Mexico. The movement of these weapons would demonstrate how our "loose" laws, as they regard the sale of weapons, support the local Mexican drug lords. That was the government story. It was totally deceptive and false.

Wake up America! This was a direct assault by the Obama Administration on our Second Amendment Rights. They developed this operation so that the flow of guns going into Mexico would create the violence and havoc that they needed to pass laws that would limit our ability, as law-abiding citizens, to purchase and own weapons.

Since the beginning of the Obama Administration they have put the full-court press on endeavoring to reinstitute the ban on the sale of so-called "assault weapons". Some the highest officials in the Obama Administration endorse this ban, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who made the claim, “that 90% of the weapons that the drug cartels are using are coming from the United States of America.” Little did we know, at the time, that it was the Obama Administration funneling those weapons into Mexico!

The incident that blew the doors wide open on the Obama administration was the December 15, 2010, killing of border Agent Brian Terry. Fast and Furious weapons were found at the site of Agent Terry’s shooting. Agent Terry had served three years in the Marine Corps, including a tour of duty in Iraq. Upon returning home he served as a Border Patrol Agent and was murdered by weapons that his own government supplied to the drug cartels. The Obama Administration and its willing accomplices in the State and Justice Departments aided and abetted the enemy!

There were apparently over 2000 assault weapons sold to drug cartels during this bungled operation. Hundreds, maybe thousands of Mexicans and Americans, have been either killed or wounded by criminals who have had their weapons provided to them by the Obama Administration. Congressman Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley are hot on the trail of Eric Holder and Barack Obama and their hideous attempt to destroy our Second Amendment Rights.

Eric Holder and Barack Obama are feeling the heat. Eric Holder is now claiming that the drive to criticize both he and Obama is due to the “color of their skin”. "This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him", says Holder. "Both, due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American. “Now, in a last ditch effort to save himself and the president, Holder has resorted to the despicable ploy of playing the race card. In military parlance they are trying to” pop smoke” and run!

It won't work this time, we’re onto your game.

Ron Paul - The Best Friend Iran Has?

Presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul may have some insightful views when it comes to economic issues, but he is nothing short of dangerous to Americans on his views of foreign policy.

A little history is helpful here to lend some perspective. Prior to America's entry into World War II, we were a nation set in "Isolationist Policy." President Roosevelt saw the need for the United States to be actively engaged in the fight against Fascism and Imperial Japan, but he knew of the American citizen's lack of interest in what was taking place in Asia and Europe.

The best Roosevelt could do on the international stage was to stop the flow of oil, steel, and other raw materials to Japan by his Export Control Act, and to support the British, Chinese, and Soviets through the Lend-Lease Program. Both of these political actions were used to husband raw materials at home while supporting our allies in their fight against Germany and Japan. While both of these acts were not acts of war, they were provocative acts to the Japanese military in their efforts to conquer Mainland China.  It was the Export Control Act that set the Japanese on a collision course with the USA that led to Pearl Harbor. The rest, as they say, is history.

With the fall of Germany and Japan, and the ushering in of the nuclear era, the United States stood alone as the world's superpower. Since 1945, like it or not, the United States has been everything from the "World's Policeman" to Peacekeeper, to Humanitarian aide giver. The days of us sitting within our borders and not influencing or affecting world policy ended with the dropping of the atomic bomb. 

 It is interesting to note that the discussions being held today on the international scene center once again on nuclear policy. With unstable regimes such as Pakistan, North Korea, and a fractured Russia sitting on stockpiles of nuclear weapons, and regimes such as Syria and Iran trying to acquire such weapons, along with the ever present threat that such weapons fall into terrorist hands, the United States can not be a disinterested observer. Our very safety demands our involvement in such important matters as nuclear weapons and who has them.

This is where Ron Paul is a menace to the safety of the United States. Ron Paul has clearly stated that, as President, he would follow the U.S. Constitution when it came to declaring war on the enemies of the USA. While I have no argument against his desire to follow the Constitution, I am concerned about his willingness to use the military. Before anyone goes apoplectic, allow me to explain: Congressman Paul has never articulated under what circumstances he would be willing to use the military to protect the interests of the United States or its citizens.

In last week's debate in Iowa, Congressman Paul was posited the question that, "If he had solid evidence Iran was going to get a nuclear weapon, a President Paul would remove the US sanctions on Iran, including those added by the Obama Administration. So to be clear, GOP nominee Ron Paul would be running left of President Obama on the issue of Iran?"

Not only did Paul not answer the question, the answer he gave was inadequate, and didn't articulate any instances under which he would use the might of the United States military or its political influence to protect its citizens. The best he could reply was that Iran wants nuclear weapons because they fear us, that we have been making them do it, therefore they need the nukes to garner more respect from other nuclear countries.

What Congressman Paul neglects to take into account are the following facts: Iran's Constitution proclaims its mission is to spread worldwide Jihad and usher in the 12th Imam and an International Caliphate. To do this, Iran would have to be willing to place itself in harm's way as a willing martyr in its desire to annihilate Israel and the United States. Their leadership of Mullah's have precisely stated their willingness to be a martyr nation, to wipe Israel off the map, and to bring down the "Great Satan", the United States. The fact that Venezuela and Iran have military ties and plans to stage military exercises in the Western Hemisphere is a cause for concern.

The United States, Israel, and the rest of Europe need to be, and are, rightfully worried about a nuclear Iran and what it means for the security of a free world. We ignore Iran at our own peril.

The American voter has to take a serious look at Congressman Paul's extreme isolationist views, and decide if such a man deserves our voting trust when the stakes are the safety and security of the lives of our families and fellow citizens. It begs this question: Is Congressman Paul, unwittingly, the best friend Iran has in its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons?

Submitted by:

Joe O'Neill