The Wall Street Journal's piece, "Why We're In The Gulf", is as clear an explanation as any as to the meaning of America's foreign policy. As simple as it seems, the Paulbots and the Liberal Socialists can't get their minds around it.

Even relatively sophisticated observers will attribute American interest in the Persian Gulf to Uncle Sam's insatiable thirst for crude, combined with an effort to gain lucrative contracts for American oil firms. The U.S. on this view is something like a global Count Dracula, roaming the earth in search of fresh bodies, hoping to suck them dry. (But) ...the purely commercial interests of American companies do not drive American grand strategy....America is significantly less dependent on foreign energy sources than the other great economies...But domestic (oil) supply is not the key to American interest in the Gulf.

...the leading global power--with help from allies and other parties--maintains the security of world trade over the seas and air while also ensuring that international economic transactions take place in an orderly way. For this system to work, the Americans must prevent any power from dominating the Persian Gulf while retaining the ability to protect the safe passage of ships through its waters.

The end of America's ability to safeguard the Gulf and the trade routes around it would be enormously damaging--and not just to us. Defense budgets would grow dramatically in every major power center, and Middle Eastern politics would be further destabilized, as every country sought political influence in Middle Eastern countries to ensure access to oil in the resulting free for all. The potential for conflict and chaos is real.

The naive and inexperienced anti-capitalists on the Left, he wistful Wilsonians and the tinfoil hatters at Ron Paul's Truther cocktail parties are BDS impaired, to the peril of our Republic. The world is a very small place now, we can't pull down the blinds and pretend it's not our business.

Oh, and BTW, Happy New Years to all you here at Townhall, you've certainly enriched my life. Thanks, and cheers!

I'll be taking a break for a while, taking care of personal issues. I'll be keeping an eye on you all, talk to you soon!

The U.N. is asking the USA to give up it's sovereignty. And as we know, the Democrats and Establishment are only to ready to comply. But Senator David Vitter of Louisiana is fighting for us. In the Jewish World Review of all places, we read:

Proponents of the United Nation's Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) came up with a brilliant idea. Led by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, they hoped to celebrate the 24th of October - also known as UN Day - by having that panel rubber-stamp LOST.Fortunately, one of the Senate's most knowledgeable and determined opponents of the Treaty, Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, exercised his right to defer its consideration, from the committee business meeting scheduled for Wednesday to at least the next one. Whether this will amount to more than a fleeting stay-of-execution depends on how many other Senators - and their constituents - become aware of the implications of making the day in this manner of the United Nations and affiliated organizations.

This is a big deal. And something Sen Vitter's office would appreciate some support from us on. The U.N. would be able to sue any US company for pollution, for instance, leaking out into international waters, based on their criteria of what it' definition is. Constitutional? What say you?

2008 looms as a possible watershed election in our times. "Non-ideologues" shout at values driven voters who recoil from Social Liberalism espoused by possible GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani, demanding loyalty to the party, not to their beliefs. Conservatives shout out as lone voices in the wilderness, questioning the governments right to it's level of control over our lives. The GOP doggedly sets to move the center of American political philosophy decidedly Leftwards. Is Conservatism dying? Steven Greenhut in the Orange County Register opined:

Conservatives and libertarians are marching to different drummers, going on different paths going in opposite directions. The libertarians still are committed to "less government interference" and "less centralized authority," but conservatives these days are more interested in building an all-powerful central government to wage war on real and perceived enemies at home and abroad. Conservatives use the word "freedom" while they wax poetic about American military might. But the policies they promote show no sign of trusting individual Americans to live their lives as they please and every sign of trusting the government to do what is best.

Greenhut points to Romney's adamant refusal to grant the States the right to decide the medical marijuana issue as an indicator of conservatives interest in Big Govt. Control. He highlights Duncan Hunter's policies:

Hunter, who wants to slap tariffs on Chinese imports, expand the military, close the border and go to war to do good around the world. His trade critique sounds like something out of communist central planning … . With his import limits he would follow the example of the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff, which wrecked international markets and helped bring on the Great Depression. Worse, though, he wants to use the U.S. military to 'expand freedom around the world,' when Washington's principal responsibility is to defend America's national security. Undertaking glorious international crusades with other people's lives is Wilsonian liberalism, not responsible conservatism."

These are a lot of issues to consider. At what point does the Constitution grant the Federal Government total power over our lives? Is it the mission of our nation to use it's military to "do good" all over the globe? I'm wondering.

The Liberal Left has often accused Neo-Cons of believing in nation building as a deluded self interest. I'm agreeing. Iraq would be wonderful if everybody was more Westernized and conducted their lives along the lines of a civilized Western country.

But they don't. And neither does Pakistan. And they've got nukes. Look at the West Bank. Democracy was given a fair shot, and a group that can be honestly termed terrorists now run it. Imagine if the West Bank had nukes.

Ralph Peters in the New York Post addressed this issue about Pakistan and Non-Western countries inability to create stable functioning democracies. They can't even create stable dictatorships.

In healthy states, such as our own, where robust institutions of government have developed over centuries, charismatic leadership encounters checks and balances. The other branches of government limit great presidents, but also restrain the worst men who reach the White House.

In the developing world, those institutions were stillborn, as tribal ties and landed aristocracies often proved ill-matched to the demands of modern statehood. Uneducated electorates chose charlatans over technocrats (when any such were available to stand for office).

The answer to the desperate needs of the people of countries such as Pakistan doesn't lie with demagogues. And it would be better if it didn't lie with military regimes, either. But the old rotation between the charlatans and the generals is likely to continue throughout our lifetimes.

Given the inability of non-Western societies to build effective government institutions, it may be time to rethink our faith in the state itself as the answer to their needs.

The overall indictment of these nations and their inability to function in a responsible manner in regards to the world, is the pause we should take when considering allowing any nation on earth the capacity to create nuclear weapons.

That means Iran.

There's a feeling of stasis on the Right. All the initiatives in Washington come from the Left, and the GOP is left reacting constantly to the assaults on the progress the last decade of Conservatism has achieved. How does Conservatism regain it's momentum? The notion of taking the Democrats on in the very issues they seem strongest is being put forward. Some ideas by YUVAL LEVIN AND PETER WEHNER:

Health Care....An effort to describe the problem in its particulars and frame it in terms of the security and stability of families, the proper ordering of economic incentives, and the need for prudence in taking on a challenge of such scale would highlight the extremism of the Democrats' proposed solution. It also would open the public to a set of reasonable reforms — to the tax system, to Medicaid, and to insurance regulation — that offer greater stability, lower costs, and better access to private coverage

Income inequality...The key steps toward mobility have long been clear: school, work, and marriage. Conservatives know how to make that case and translate it into policy. They must do so, and again make clear the basic difference between their notion and the left's notion of freedom and the role of government.

The environment...Here, as in health care, the Democrats' proposals are a gross overreach. It's as if steep punitive taxation is the goal and climate change arguments are just a means to get there. ....As chief executive officer of Applied Predictive Technologies, Jim Manzi, has written, global warming calls for investments in research for climate modeling, mitigating the effects of fossil fuels, and pursuing other sources of energy. Republicans, again, have an opportunity to provide constructive proposals to counter the reckless and excessive prescriptions of the left, and to plainly describe them as such.

The point is, when will the GOP get off of it's rear end and take the initiative? Or are they simply content to just campaign as being Not-Democrats?

The primaries can't come fast enough. Watching a Republican debate comes with the bonus of getting a stick in the eye, the ever present presence of a non Republican, foisted on us by a cult of followers who will be seeking out the same psychiatric help the Liberals used when George Bush won the last two elections, when Ron Paul loses. Tom Beven quotes him:

"Islamic fascism."......"It's a false term to make people think we're fighting Hitler," Paul responded. "It's war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread."

Paul subscribes to the view that religious fundamentalism is not the driving force behind Islamic terrorism and that if we simply remove all of our troops from Muslim parts of the world, attacks against America and the West will cease.

He also is listening to the Truthers. That's all I need to know about Ron Paul.

Pragmatism. Vote your conscience concerning your principles, or your judgement of the best outcome. This is the struggle occurring within the Right. On one hand, some say Hillary is no option. On the other, only by asserting the ideology of the Christian coalition can the party of the Right be viable. Pasadena Phil at the Way We Are poses the question of a new party, with the dissolution of the GOP.  Tony Blankley chimes in about this predicament:

Politics is the zone where one's religious and ethical habits are not always the only and best guides. We can make a 100-percent commitment to, for example, obey our marital vows or adhere to the teachings of our churches -- and consciously strive never to fall short.

But in the practicality of democratic elections, we cannot make such a similar commitment to every one of our governing ideals. Elections are very specific and limited choices between different outcomes. The decision not to vote or vote for a third-party candidate with no hope of winning is itself a moral choice for the outcome such a vote will effectuate. People of conscience will have to decide whether feeling pure by voting "none of the above" is the highest ethical act or not.

This issue more than any other will decide whether or not a Conservative is elected to the White House in 2008. Do you accept the GOP as is, no questions asked and vote to win, or do you demand a party reflects your beliefs and principles?

Shilling for the Democratic Party, the Enemedia does it's duty to spread falsehoods and make an effort to shape public opinion in favor of the New Socialists. The Boston Globe has proclaimed more people are "warming up to Hillary". My eye. Baloney. Blarney.

"I was actually surprised how many people said they were for Hillary," Schwartz said. "Now, they're getting to know her, and they're starting to like her. She is a nice person!"

And...Chris Matthews is an independent journalist. And Keith Olberman is a mental giant.

They are desperate to drive up her likability ratings, that's not news. That we see the Mainstream Media jumping in to help is not new, yet never fails to outrage me. Let's cut to the chase.

Hillary Clinton is a mean spirited control freak who wants to impose a Socialist Totalitarian vision upon the United States, and as such is an enemy of our Republic. A true example of the Neo-Comm.

"I don't think I feel I have to like her personally, said Diane McGonagle, 56, who walked from her home in Concord last week to see Obama address a rally in a public park. "I don't see why warmth is an issue."

That's the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives believe in what is right and wrong, and Liberals will dismiss or rationalize such notions, because to them, the ends justify the means.

The Heritage Foundation thinks Micheal Chertoff is improving his outlook towards illegal aliens these days.

Illinois passed a law banning employers from participating in the Basic Pilot Program (aka E-Verify), the successful federal system used to track down phony Social Security numbers and thus detect illegal workers....

In announcing the lawsuit, Chertoff said, “Well, it's very simple. When Congress passes a law, everybody has to abide by it, and that includes the states. And the states don't get a veto over which federal laws they want to have obeyed or not obeyed. In this case, the state's actually gone so far as to prevent people from obeying the law or taking advantage of an opportunity Congress has provided to check your workers. And we just can't allow that to continue.”

He’s right. And he’s also right about the other stepped-up enforcement that just rounded up a couple thousand more illegal aliens in New York and California, despite outcries from the usual parties. Still, there’s a long way to go. So here’s hoping he’ll be consistent and go after other places that have made amnesty policies official.

Will his department now also sue the states that have granted in-state tuition to illegal immigrant college students, in direct violation of federal law?

And will DHS now sue the cities that thumb their noses at the law with what they call sanctuary policies and the rest of us call amnesty? The Congressional Research Service identified 32 such communities in 2006; others list a larger number. Big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Houston and Seattle top the list.

A couple thousand? You arrest a couple thousand illegal aliens in Cincinnati and I believe you'd only touch a drop in the bucket. Who are they trying to kid? And what about the fence?

The left is urging civil disobedience on immigration.

The Left is urging Treason on Iraq, Treason on our sovereignty, and war on our Capitalistic, Judeo/Christian morally based cultured Republic.

And what about the fence?

They worship the New York TImes. And so, as Gateway Pundit has so eloquently reported, the Times is seriously depressed that the Haditha Marines are being exhonerated. Because they are relentlessly hoping for an atrocity that defines the Iraq War.

An Al-Qaeda atrocity like the Yazidi bombings, the murder of a brave young Sunni Sheik, torture chamber drawings, or dismembering and booby-trapping dead soldier's bodies just won't do.

It must be an American atrocity.
Sometimes it's hard to figure out just who they are rooting for.

They are being too kind. We know exactly who they are rooting for.

There are some conservatives who work to be kind and inclusive, saying Liberals are Americans too, and that they care about our country too. That's letting them off the hook. Conservatism believes in personal responsibility, and Liberals are responsible for their beliefs, based on feelings and failed political ideas, that endanger our Republic's continued existence. The neo-communism cloaked in the populist mantle of Progressivism, must be defeated. Our future is at stake.

As the days go by, the complete lack of common sense displayed by the GOP continues to deepen. First, Scamnesty, then.....Larry Craig....and now.....a bunch of mediocre candidates are going to stand up and be attacked by one of the worst vitriolic unhinged ideologues on the Left. What's wrong with the Republican leadership? The Democrats won't get near honest journalism like Fox News, yet the GOP continues to let the Democratic shills flail away. The impending Republican debate will be moderated by Chris Matthews. The New York Post says:

NBC needs to replace him (Matthews) as a debate moderator immediately. The job - by definition - requires an attempt to display objectivity going into an event.

Yes, the distinction between "objective journalist" and "opinion-maker" in recent years has been blurred to the point where they're nearly indistinguishable. But Matthews' comments obliterated any possible distinction.

Earlier this year, the Democratic presidential candidates refused to participate in a debate on Fox News on the grounds that the channel was "biased." That's baloney, of course - certainly the debate wasn't going to be moderated by Fox's prime-time opinion hosts.

I'm not worried about how bad the GOP will look, even though Matthews will tar and feather them. Because, NO ONE watches MSNBC. I'm worried about the kind of leadership running the party that would allow a decision to appear at such a public shellacking, to be made in the first place.

The Republican Party is truly the Stupid Party. God help us.

Ex president Carter that is, in Darfur, desperately trying to become relevant (why don't you go to Myanmar?) in the company of an "internationally respected" group called the "Elders", including Richard Branson (? I don't respect either of these guys) gets put in his place. After the idiot ex-pres confronted local chief of the feared Sudanese secret police, he got hustled out of there, FAST.

"We've got to move, or someone is going to get shot," warned one of the U.N. staff accompanying the delegation.

Somebody tell this guy he forgot to take his medications. The delusions are still lingering.

"But it's true that I'm not accustomed to people telling me I can't walk down the street and meet people," he told the AP after returning to a United Nations compound in El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state.

Guess our internationally respected elder hasn't been around the block as much as we've been lead to believe. But there's always the hi-tech, third world junior high hallway method of communication.

Branson said some refugees had slipped notes in his pockets.

This sounds like a skit on Saturday Night Live. Nelson Mandela's wife had enough, and soothed the addled one's dementia riddled nerves to get him on his way back to the hotel:

"I'll tell President Bashir about this," Carter said, referring to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

And he'll pat our most failed, ineffective and irrelevant ex president on the head and say, "there, there, it's time for your medicine."

It has long been held here that Academia is the incubator, breeding ground and refuge for Socialisim and it's anti American proponents in our country. We see any number of Universities flout our laws in the name of political correctness and the furtherment of communist ideology cloaked in the mantle of Progressive philosophy. The University of Michigan on the forefront refusing to comply with the ruling to end reverse discriminitory  policies of affirmative action. And the attack on our military is brazen and seemingly unchecked on the campuses.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported an amazing unthought of tactic in dealing with these hot beds of treason.

For five years, Yale Law School has fought to restrict military recruiters from its job fairs because of the Pentagon’s policy that bars openly gay or bisexual people from the military. But with the federal government threatening to withhold $350 million in grants if the university does not assist the recruiters, that fight will all but end on Monday.

Now was that really so hard? And would it be difficult to cut off funding from cities that promote sanctuary for Illegal Aliens? How about San Francisco? Anybody see a problem with Gavin Newsome's approach to our Laws? This is a no brainer, which puts it squarely in the realm of congressional action, and our lamebrains in Washington are just the idiots to take this up. Cut off the money to traitors.

The Wall Street Journal seems to believe that the only way the GOP can win elections is by embracing the millions of Illegal Aliens here is America. There it is. They've said it.

To retain their Hispanic gains, Republicans need to repudiate only the immoral, uneconomical goal of mass deportation.

John McCain must have renewed his subscription. Yet for some strange reason, Americans don't seem to feel that way. Like in Irving Texas:
The proponents of open borders and amnesty for Illegal Aliens face a grass roots rejection that is swelling. By insisting we legalize the lawbreakers, they could be unleashing a tidal wave of citizen backlash, a massive call for deportation, and hotlines ablaze with citizens turning in the location of Illegal aliens and their employers.

The Progressives and "non ideologues" are underestimating the American people.