Standing before the European parliament, Joe declared Brussels had more of a right to be called the “Capital of the Free World,” than Washington, DC. To support his claim he cited the city’s history and its position as the capital of Belgium, the location of the European parliament and the headquarters of NATO. To say I was shocked is an understatement.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BngvJvTodl8

I suppose, in the future, when some upstart tyrant conquers his neighbors or kills off the minorities in his country, Europe will ride to the rescue with diplomats flocking to Brussels for help. Good! With Brussels firmly in control, the American military can be brought home from bases around the world. Finally, no longer needing a military, we can sit back and complain about Brussels. Then we, the greatest super-power on earth can finally become Canada.

Let’s consider the history of the US and Brussels for a moment to see who truly deserves this title. Only one look is needed. During WWII, when both nations (the US and Belgium) were involved in resisting Fascism, the US dashed her own sons against the walls of Fortress Europe to overthrow Hitler and liberate a continent. But what was Belgium doing? What is the best way to describe Belgium’s part in that fight for freedom? It is a single word, just on the tip of my tongue. Oh, that’s right, the word is “surrender.” Sorry Brussels, but you’ll have to do a bit more than rent space to some foreign agencies and make waffles to be the Capital of the Free World—keep up the waffles though.

Somebody grab Joe and muzzle him again. Perhaps he should follow the practice of his boss and stick to the teleprompter.

Every time a law is passed it chips away freedom. If the law forbids some action then you are no longer free to take certain actions. If the law requires an action then you are no longer free to refrain from acting. For this reason, I often point out that the freest time in America is when Congress is in recess. This nation has, on the federal level, 535 people paid full time to do nothing more than make laws and seek reelection. I know some will point out that the job of our Senators and Representatives includes meeting with constituents, but these meetings are primarily for three reasons: reelection, build support for legislation and get ideas for other legislation. With the majority of their time consumed with keeping their job and enacting laws the greatest threat to the freedoms we so love is Congress.

So what is the solution? Is it to be found in making Congress part time, similar to many state legislatures? This will actually change little. The best thing is to elect officials who understand the Constitution and honor their pledge to uphold it. For example, earmarks would not be a problem if constituents stopped electing people who shell out federal dollars to get reelected. Of course this is hard when many who balk at earmarks attack their own representative for not bringing home enough project money. Most Americans oppose earmarks, except for the ones that come home to line their own pockets. We need elected officials who are statesmen first and foremost. Such people do the right thing, even if the next election means a job hunt.

We also need passion on the floor of the Senate and House where those who believe strongly for and against any legislation are encouraged to fight it out tooth and nail—verbally of course. Instead of pandering to the CSPAN cameras, let’s have heated debates with partisans (yes, I said partisans) fighting to the point of exhaustion to prevent anything unconstitutional from leaving either floor. Breaking a sweat in defense of one’s beliefs has been replaced with looking good for the cameras.

The next thing we need is an informed electorate that will hold its representatives responsible by demanding for each vote the constitutional grounds upon which that person voted. If a politician is unable to give good constitutional reasons for a vote he or she should look for other work. Until the American people realize that this is our government that has been allowed to rob us of wealth and chip away at our freedoms there will be no meaningful change. I hear complaints all the time about how bad politicians are. Can you imagine any business owner having nothing but complaints about an employee continuing to employ that person? We must realize that the politicians are our employees and if they are not performing up to standards (the Constitution) then we must fire them.

Unfortunately, certain Republicans in the House of Representatives thought that you and I do not spend enough on utilities and voted with the majority to dip into your wallet. It is my hope that the eight voting for the bill will face serious primary opposition and be removed from office next time around.

The eight who voted to raise the consumer’s cost of energy:

Mary Bono Mack (R CA)
Michael Castle (R DE)
Mark Kirk (R IL)
Leonard Lance (R NJ)
Frank LoBiondo (R NJ)
John McHugh (R NY)
Dave Reichert (R WA)
Christopher Smith (R NJ)

In party politics we as individuals must realize that we will never have a perfect candidate—one who is supported by all of the party. Compromise is essential in politics, even on the choice of a candidate. In deciding whom to support we take many things into account and their position on issues are only part of the equation. We must also keep in mind that, at least on the federal level, no single candidate will ever accomplish anything. The lone wolf is the most ineffective member of Congress. Change comes from majorities. If the majority will be freedom loving then it may be necessary to tolerate a few RINOs so long as the majority is large enough to counter their foolish votes. Unfortunately, with the last Republican majority this concept caused trouble. First, the majority was slim enough that liberal Republicans often obliterated the advantage of the majority by voting with the opposition. Second, once the ratio of conservatives, moderates and liberals in the majority tips from one to the other you may have the same party in charge, but an entirely different agenda.

The Republican party leadership must realize that the base will not support a liberal or moderate majority, even a Republican one. As conservatives and libertarians we must support candidates who believe in the maximum of freedom, even if at times it means our party loses.

We ordain the Constitution to protect our liberty.
We permit the government to wield our power.
We create parties to express our voice.

The GOP got the mistaken idea that the members of the party exist to keep them in office and power. They forgot that the liberties, the power and the voice are ours. They are simply one of several tools. Like any tool, it is of value so long as it performs its function, other wise it is discarded.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiGuuYkl7kw

If the Republican members of the House have come back to party principles then four years in the political desert is worth it. While stopping Obama and the Hip-pocket Congress, we must rebuild the party with honest committed conservatives and libertarians. The party faithful are loyal to the principles of the party more than to specific candidates or precious majorities. Start pitching for the other team and you too will get benched. Our principles are what will put you in office and return you to a majority, not good press or entitlement voters.

Mr. Pence, I hope what you say about the Republicans in the House is true. Forgive us if we don’t take your word for it. We will watch and see. As the old saying goes: “Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.” Principled Republicans must not be fooled again.

Shortly after the election Barack Obama was poised to close Club Gitmo and either send the detainees to other countries or move them into our prison system. Now it seems Barry has decided to keep Gitmo open, secure the detainees indefinitely and to restart military tribunals. In effect, the Bush doctrine is under new management. So why would he do this? When he was in the Senate, it was Bush’s job to keep the US safe and to fight terror. Senator Obama had the luxury of speaking against the war, against the troops and against abuses—real or pretend. As president, any attack after his soft stance on terror would screw up his legacy. It seems their only threat is to the memory of the Obama presidency.

Those who know me and my views on liberty and freedom, may find it odd that I am in support of Guantanamo and military tribunals. The war we have been fighting since 911 is unlike any in recent history. For most of our history, going to war involved a set location with defined borders and a specific enemy. In this war there are no borders, no uniforms and no single nation against which we can pour our national wrath. Possibly the closest war to this was against the Barbary pirates under Thomas Jefferson. Had the men in Gitmo chosen to fight under the flag of a foreign country, they would be traditional Prisoners of War with all the protections of international law, held only for the duration. If they had been domestic terrorists, like the Oklahoma City bombers they would be subject to US law and have the protections of our legal system. However, these combatants chose to recognize no nation, follow no laws, wear no uniform and to use any means at their disposal to kill, main and terrorize our citizens. Their goal was to disrupt our lives and abrogate our freedoms through the use of any means possible. Their disposition is not a matter of human rights and maintenance of the dignity due an honorable enemy. It is a matter of keeping what amounts to little more than animals locked away where they can do no more harm. You choose to act like a dog; you find yourself in the pound. They chose their form of war, so they leave us no choice but to use our most effective tools to find, detain or kill them. This is War!

Our elected officials have forgotten whom they represent. By seeking the goodwill of the world’s elites sitting in the UN, they leave their own people without a voice. Many have decried the focus on American foreign policy on American interests. There seems to be an opinion afloat that the US should only take actions based on the world’s needs and world’s interests. Such a global focus is not only a recipe for inaction and defeat, but is itself immoral. When our government spends our money, speaks for our people and takes actions that endanger our sons and daughters their only consideration should be our interests. When France acts on the world stage they should have French interests in mind—the same goes for England, Belgium, or Russia.

Thanks to Craig Rubadoux, Florida Today for the images

In Israel, itself a very liberal country, you don’t see leaders losing sleep over the displeasure of the UN or anyone else. They understand that their lifespan is in direct proportion to the success of their military. The peoples around them have dedicated themselves—not to peaceful cohabitation, or even subjugation—but to the annihilation of Israel. Efforts to force Israel to trade land for peace and to develop a two state system have failed miserably. Israel has understood for a long time what we are just beginning to learn: the only thing that will back down a terrorist is death or fear of it.

Since 911 there have been no new attacks on US soil. This is probably going to be President Bush’s primary legacy. There have been attempts but nothing nearly as awful as the attack on the World Trade Center. There one reason why Osama Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda have not launched a major attack: making grand plans from your tunnel hideout is hard when your country is overrun by American soldiers and marines itching to put a bullet through your skull.

Our leaders must take a lesson from Israel: when facing an enemy intent on your destruction there is no option but to win. You can’t talk; you can’t reason; you can’t buy them off. The only option is victory. Are we as a people willing to pay the price? Are we willing to win our war against terrorists? Will our leaders allow us to win it?
This book available at Amazon.com.