July 20, 2010
This interview is part of an ongoing 2010 series of conversations with former Congressman and conservative icon Duncan Lee Hunter. The intent is to keep this rock ribbed conservative’s ideas in the public square which will hopefully influence the direction of the Republican Party, as well as inspire the American people to embrace his Reaganesque views on American life and politics. With any luck, Hunter will seek the presidency again in 2012, but for now he is concentrating on helping the GOP wrestle control of the Congress from the radical Pelosi brigades.
AJM: Hello Congressman, I hear you are keeping very busy these days.
DH: Yeah. I’m spending a lot of my time writing the book. But I’m doing a couple fundraisers this week for congressional candidates. We’re doing what we can to ensure we get those 40 seats we need to put a halt to the Obama agenda. You remember Sydney Hay, she worked on my campaign?
AJM: Yeah, I remember her. But I don’t recall her being very effective. (laughs)
DH: Well, she had a lot of irons in the fire. She’s a wonderful, conservative lady and she’s running to get back one of the Republican seats we lost in 06 and 08. She ran last time against a gal who was fairly liberal, Kirkpatrick, I think. And the democrats spent 4 or 5 million dollars in her inaugural race. They swamped Sydney with money, most of it in negative advertising. They had two seats the Democrats took from us; actually 3 in Arizona that were ostensibly Republican seats. One was Gabriel Gifford’s in Tucson with a 20,000 vote Republican plurality. The Dems took it when Kolbe retired. The other was Rick Renzi’s seat. Rick had some ethical problems and resigned his seat, or didn’t run again. And then they took the JD Hayworth seat in Phoenix.
DH: So they took those seats and we’ve now got a chance of getting those back. So anyway, Sydney’s coming out here. We’ll try to get that seat back in the right column.
DH: No, on the 21st. So I’m trying to get folks lined up. You know it’s hard to get people who are out of your congressional district to donate. But we’re trying to do that.
AJM: Good. Good!
DH: So that’s what I’m doing.
AJM: Well, put me down for $50.
DH: I’ve got you down (laughs). But the big deal is Gunny Pop on the 22nd. And I don’t know if you saw what’s happened with him?
AJM: His wife sends me emails every couple of weeks. They kind of keep me updated on the campaign.
DH: Well, let me tell you what happened. They did an editorial cartoon about him in the Imperial Valley paper.
AJM: Oh yeah, I saw that.
DH: It was deriding his eye patch. It was two little boys standing in front of a poster of Gunny. One says “who does he look like?” And the other is saying “Uncle Fester with patch”, and other derogatory comparisons. So 300 people in the Valley put a full page ad in today saying ‘Imperial Valley Press, if you want to know how he got his eye patch, here’s how’. And it starts out “The President of the United States is proud to award the Silver Star to Gunnery Sergeant Nick Popaditch for valor in action in the battle for Falluja”, etc, etc. THAT’S how he lost his eye. Went in to save a wounded Marine, ended up fighting through the town.
DH: Yeah, he’s a fairly famous guy. Anyway, he’s gotten a lot of play out of that and they had a thing on him on Rush Limbaugh’s show, it was on Fox News, and on TV here in San Diego today or tomorrow.
AJM: Nick got on the Limbaugh show?
DH: Yeah, I mean Limbaugh talked about him.
AJM: Oh great!
DH: He’s got a little traction.
AJM: I think Mark Levin was talking about him too, awhile back.
DH: That’s great.
AJM: You know, everyone who hears about him, immediately likes him.
DH: If we get him enough money to get on television, he wins that race. If we don’t, and people never get to know him, you can’t vote for someone you never heard of. He could be the greatest guy in the world.
AJM: I’ll probably be sending in another donation.
DH: Listen, that’s great. But here’s what we need to do. You’re a technical guy, a good internet search guy. If we could line up - the Marines are very clannish, much more clannish than the Army or the Navy. They are very tight as an organization, almost like the Mormons, they get together on business and everything else. Remember the days when they had the so-called ‘Marine Mafia’ in the Reagan Whitehouse?
DH: Led by Bud McFarland and Ollie North. So, it’s a good thing that they are tight and stay pretty well connected. If we can get the Marines of the United States - the retired Marine community - on board and energized for the Gunny Pop campaign; we win. We can bring in, because of internet fundraising capability, or potential, we can bring in a lot of money for him and win this thing.
The tough part, as you know, with connecting people is that most of these lists are kept close to the chest by their owners, right? It’s hard to get a list. If you are trying to get a list of Veterans, it’s always very difficult to get it; a list of Marines, it’s difficult to get it. We need to figure out how to get nationally into some Marine Associations. Get them connected and get them on board with the Popaditch campaign.
AJM: Yeah, I’d think so. That would make sense.
DH: There’s the Marine League.
AJM: Yeah, the Marine League. There are probably dozens of different groups. So what I would do is get the name of the groups, find out the head of the organization – they usually have someone in charge whether it’s a retired officer or it might just be the group’s secretary – and send emails to them and say ‘hey, I’m working on behalf of Nick Popaditch, here’s his story, and here’s what we’re doing. And we’d like to get your support to help spread the word and get your comrade some support and publicity’. I think if you just ask directly for the help, many would be willing to do it.
DH: The way we do this is put together a little email package that has the political cartoon along with the ad that was in response to it….
AJM: The email blast that Gunny sent out, or his wife April sent out form their campaign was pretty good, the one I got. I’m on their email list. It was very good. It described the situation, it showed the cartoon. The way I found it was that someone posted it on FreeRepublic. I saw it and checked my email and I got the same thing. So we can get it to the wider audience of these Marine groups.
DH: Exactly. That full page ad was put out today. Did you see that response ad in Gunny’s package?
AJM: No, it wasn’t in there. I got the email yesterday or the day before.
DH: See, they (Popaditch campaign) weren’t part of that. We did that without consulting the campaign. We just got a bunch of citizens together and within a couple hours they raised $1700 for the full page ad.
AJM: (laughs) This has your fingerprints all over it!
DH: I wrote it, but what I did is basically put the Presidential citation for the Silver Star.
AJM: It speaks for itself.
DH: Yeah. ‘You want to know how this ugly old Marine got ugly and had his eye put out’? Here’s how! We really whacked them good. The editor did do a kind of a mealy mouthed apology in a big spread in the paper.
You know it’s crazy. He (the editor) said “what I was really trying to do was underscore the apathy of young voters”. Well first, the kids that are saying this stuff in the cartoon are on skateboards. How many skateboarders are voting?? But secondly, what is your instrument of education for the young voters in Imperial Valley? It’s the Imperial Valley Press, which is him. So the question is how many articles did you write about Gunny Pop so that these young people would know about him and his story if indeed they wanted to know about him? The answer is NONE!
That’s what’s phony about his ‘well, we want to educate young voters’. All they’ve done is make fun of a guy with an eye patch. They haven’t reported he’s a Silver Star winner.
AJM: That’s the thing, if it wasn’t accompanied by anything that would have been of use to the readers.
DH: There was no educational device. It was basically just a cynical jab at him.
AJM: Well, it worked to get a lot of attention for his paper, apparently.
DH: Machiavelli couldn’t have done better.
DH: When you don’t have anything, make them attack you, right?
AJM: I think that’s it.
DH: Now I’ve got another idea. I know David Keene, the head of the ACU, at least he was the last time I talked to him. And he did an email blast that….
AJM: Oh wait, that’s the idiot that endorsed Romney, isn’t it?
DH: I hope not. He better not have endorsed Romney!
AJM: He did.
DH: Well, I do know this. I’m on their Board. And when I spoke to the ACU during the presidential candidate speeches, the weasels had me come in – I came in from South Carolina to address the audience…
AJM: It was like 8:00 in the morning…
DH: …the next morning, I got a big standing ovation and I walked off and they said “it’s too bad, but everyone has already voted in the straw poll”.
DH: And Romney, to fill their coffers, bussed in about 1500 kids from local schools, paid for by him, as Junior ACL… I mean ACU members. It should have been called the ACLU! (laughs)
DH: The ACU was happy to take their 50 or 100 dollars a piece that Romney paid for, right? He basically bussed in a bunch of votes at $50 a head. About 2000 of them. That’s about $100K for the ACU.
AJM: That’s the same way he competed so well in Iowa too.
DH: Yeah. But anyway, my smiling ACU co-members, they were still less than supportive. They were still obviously attracted by the sound of money. But I always kid Dave Keene about him having been left on more tarmacs by presidential contenders than the 101st Airborne.
DH: Bob Dole basically shoved him out of the plane and went tootling on to the last stretch of his campaign.
But anyway, I think Dave will help us. I’ll see if I can get a hold of him.
But listen, what do you have for me today? Incidentally, the stuff you sent me was good - the thing I got that my wife pulled off from your email - the Obama quotes. Especially the Katie Couric interview where he was tap dancing like a wild thing when she asked “did the Surge work?” But I also need to get them for Biden and Hillary Clinton, if possible.
AJM: There is some Hillary stuff in there. I’m not sure what’s in there on Biden. I’ll see if I can find some more stuff on Joe. Because he was dead set against it.
DH: That’s right. It was Resolution No. 2 of 2007 in the Senate to stop the surge. It was written by Joe Biden.
DH: I’m going to publish that in my book, I’m going to put in that vote. I’m going to put in the vote from the Senate and the House. They were both near unanimous democrat attempts to get out of Dodge. They like to think people are going to forget those things. On the contrary, I think that was an important, landmark vote because it obviously worked. It helped us win the war. And they were against it!! Very similar to the hand wringing defeatists during Vietnam.
Biden was the successor to J. William Fulbright, the leftwing chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee who passed the cowardly law that American Armed Forces may not fight in, near or over Vietnam.
AJM: Yeah, and I believe Fulbright was also Slick Willie’s, I mean Bill Clinton’s mentor.
DH: Yeah, I think you’re right.
AJM: It’s a small world after all.
DH: Anyway, what do you got there?
AJM: Let’s see. The EPA? What do we do about these people? I remember when I was researching your record, I think it was the mid to late 90s, where you called out for a reduction in the EPA funding and scope of at least 50%, or more. They actually had you in the papers pushing that angle, trying to paint you as an extremist, I’m sure. But now in this day and age, no one has cut their wings back and they are trampling all over Texas, they decided to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant, all kind of crazy stuff. What do we do with the EPA?
DH: The problem with the bureaucrats that run the EPA and the liberals, who generate the social policies that they follow, is that there is no strategic wisdom. Therefore, the net effect of the EPA’s actions which have contributed to the economic paralysis of the United States, has been to push the industrial base into China, India and about a half dozen other 3rd world nations.
You have in the EPA a microcosm of the Kyoto Protocol dynamics, in which the world pressed the United States to constrain itself with respect to industrial expansion and emissions, but exempted two ‘small countries’, namely India and Red China. At a time when the jobless rate is at an all time high, with respect to the last quarter century, the idea that we are going to further kill jobs by mandating increasing environmental strictures, while our manufacturing and production lines continue to move offshore, amounts to economic suicide!
And one reason the economy, the jobs situation, is not recovering, is because the United States, by policy moves, has pushed one of the most important sectors of the economy - ie manufacturing - into foreign nations. And the reason the classic chain of recovery – in which consumer confidence generates increased sales, generating increased hiring in factories, which revives the expansion and services and upgrades to those factories creating even more ancillary jobs - doesn’t work, is because an American today can spend thousands of dollars on consumer items and the economic pull of those purchases felt in Beijing. Not in Los Angeles, not in San Diego, not in Des Moines, not in New York. Not in Florida, or Mississippi, or any other American location. But it’s felt offshore. So the dynamic is not working. It’s not working partly because our environmental strictures have created an imbalance in the world manufacturing base in which foreign countries now appear to be increasingly attractive when compared to American locations. So almost all the expansion in manufacturing is taking place offshore. China, for example, recently completed a quarter of record exports and 15 % growth while we are basically in the throes of the Obama recession.
A great many of the industries that were heretofore located in the United States are transplanting to these other locations.
AJM: You’re right. I think that entire sequence of events has occurred. So what’s the solution with regards to the EPA?
DH: The solution here has to begin with politics. Republicans HAVE TO take the House back. Because the Democrats are chemically incapable of saying no to any environmental restrictions, no matter how impractical, or how expensive, or how job-killing it is. It is simply not possible for them to vote in any way to restrain the EPA.
Incidentally, I remember a great illustration of that. That was when a colleague of mine was trying to straighten out a deadly stretch of road where 6 or 8 people were killed each year on this highway in his congressional district. And he couldn’t straighten it out because it would require a bridge that went over a ravine in which endangered birds sometimes nested. And he finally offered an amendment that said, in effect, ‘in this vote we shall find that Human lives are more valuable than the lives of animals’. So I went up to the Republican who was managing the bill for the GOP side and said “I think we’re going to win this one”. He said, “you wanna bet?” He said it doesn’t make any difference, this amendment will be voted down. And it was.
The point is that the democrats are in lock step with environmental interests which fund them heavily.
Another example of that is Richard Pombo, was at one point the chairman of the Interior Committee in the House during the Republican majority years. One of the courageous actions that Pombo took, in coordination with my committee, the Armed Services Committee, was to allow American Armed Forces to train on the military bases without being further constrained by having their training areas closed through the EPA edicts and environmental lawsuits. At one time, Camp Pendleton, which was producing our Marine training which flows our forces into Afghanistan and Iraq, was in danger of having over 50% of its land area taken out of the training complex. Over 50%! During a war! And so Richard Pombo passed the initial legislation through his interior Committee, the natural resources committee, which allowed the military to continue to train, not only a Camp Pendleton, but at other bases around the country which were being closed down, for practical purposes. The punishment for Pombo was to have millions of dollars directed against his re-election campaign by extremist environmental organizations. He was defeated. When he tried to comeback this year, he was defeated in the Republican primary. And I am informed, though I haven’t seen the FEC docuiments themselves yet, that there was a massive amount of funding that went into the GOP primary against Pombo, to punish him for keeping our military bases open, shielding them from environmental lawsuits and regulations, during a time of war.
So once again, you’re not going arrive at a happy state where Democrats listen to reason with respect to the EPA and other environmental agencies. It is not chemically possible for them to be rational in this area.
So if we want to have a chance of an economic recovery in this country, you are going to have to have a Republican majority, which does practical things., and balances the rights of another endangered species – that is the working American – with the ‘rights’ of critters.
AJM: Very good. Personally, I think they are reaching their hand in to so many things that I think your call for a 50% reduction in the EPA was probably too low. Maybe 70%. In other words, don’t we need to re-align their scope of work, their scope of responsibilities, so they can’t be bureaucratically coming up with these dictates which are often well beyond what Congress even passes?
DH: Absolutely. 70% might even be too little. You know what happened when the Endangered Species Act passed? It passed with people agreeing to the idea that we had to save eagles, the national symbol of our country. When you had major species being threatened you should protect them. And I as a practical conservationist generally agree with that. I think almost all American do.
But today, a lawyer can hang out his shingle, with this claim: A good environmental lawyer can stop human activity in almost any part of the United States if he has enough money to pursue lawsuits. A lawyer can say “I will find something, some animal, some species, no matter how small, that will stop this terrible human activity”. Have gun, will travel.
And I think one example of that is the sand dunes in Imperial Valley where a lot of blue collar folks go out to an area where the wind shifts the sand and wipes out your foot tracks or your wheel tracks in a matter of minutes when there’s a storm. This is where blue collar Americans go out to have a good time. They drive their 4 wheel drives and their sand buggies. They camp at the same places where their families have camped for 30 or 40 years. It’s a neat vacation spot for folks from Los Angeles and San Diego who can’t afford to go fly fishing in New Zealand for a vacation.
DH: The enviros went out there and they couldn’t find anything in the desert because it’s a very bleak desert. They finally found a weed called the milk fetch.
AJM: You’re kidding me!
DH: They sued to cut down and stop the offroading in the sand dunes of Imperial Valley. This remote area where nobody was hurting anything. And they succeeded. For years, they kept a large part of that closed to Southern California families.
AJM: I remember reading about you trying to get that area re-opened.
DH: Well, we managed to keep it from being designated a ‘wilderness’, where no vehicle could have gone into it. And we actually had a biologist at one point, who went out and found millions of milk fetch seeds in areas where there had been lots of off road traffic. In other words, the off road traffic helped to plant the seeds.
DH: It was actually beneficial to that plant!
But my point is that it took a lot of work from these radical environmentalists. They had to go looking for a very out of the way plant, very hard to find, some small, tiny specie that had no value to anyone, and was not appreciated by anyone, but was just “there”. Every square inch of this earth, or every square foot of this earth has some living organism on it. And a good environmental lawyer, an effective – I shouldn’t use the the term ‘good’ – an effective environmental lawyer or bureaucrat, can at least for a period of time close down any human activity on any part of the United States, if he has enough money and a sympathetic judge.
That is NOT what was intended when we passed the endangered species act, where congressmen where making speeches in front of piles of bald eagles that had been illegally killed. That’s not what was intended, to close down all of our jobs, and to close down areas that for practical purposes had next to no wildlife.
AJM: I think that is government in a nutshell. You give a bureaucracy a task, or you create a bureaucracy to do a specific task, but for some reason, they have free reign to do scope creep on you, and pretty soon they’re telling you can’t kill the pests in your garden!
DH: And that dovetails with the fact that a governmental bureaucracy’s tendency is to replace its primary mission with another mission – self perpetuation. And, that my friend, is the EPA.
(PART II Coming soon)
Duncan Hunter FR Exclusive: On Gunny Pop, Chuck DeVore, Car Bombers, Anchor Babies and more!!
Sunday, May 09, 2010
This interview is part of an ongoing series of conversations with former Congressman and conservative activist Duncan Hunter. The intent is to keep this rock ribbed conservative’s ideas in the public square which will hopefully help guide his former colleagues still in office, as well as inspire the American people to embrace his Reaganesque views on American politics. With any luck, Hunter will seek the presidency again in 2012, but for now he is concentrating on helping the GOP regain the majority in the House by supporting a lineup of like-minded, young conservatives running for seats currently held by liberal Democrats. This interview finds Hunter on the road from San Diego to Brawley, CA, on his way to a political event for Nick ‘Gunny Pop’ Popaditch.
AJM: Well, what I’d like to start off with is something we talked about briefly the other day, and that is your son Duncan getting hammered from the leftists and the media as well as some of the GOP open borders lobby for standing his ground on not only supporting the Arizona’s new immigration law but also his comments regarding so called ‘anchor babies’. I wanted your take on this.
DH: The anchor baby question is the perfect question for the lefties; it’s the “have you stopped beating your wife” question.
DH: If you answer “yes” to the question then you are not for enforcing immigration law because you would never ‘want to take an infant away from its mother’. And if you say “no”, to that question then you are, obviously, a ‘very cruel, racist person’ in terms of not letting them stay in the United States. So it’s a question for which lefties, I’m sure, love to propound; but the question back to them is: Well, what’s your answer?
If you don’t have some device that goes toward ensuring that people can’t game the system, manipulate the system by coming over immediately before they have a child, having the child, then utilizing that child to neutralize their illegal crossing, then you simply have a system in which immigration law is manipulated by people and that’s not something that we can tolerate.
So it’s the perfect ‘have you stopped beating your wife question’. It’s too bad.
It’s also interesting; Duncan, like I do, supports the concept of the Arizona law. I haven’t read the law itself yet, and I actually like to read the law itself before I give a definitive take on it, but in many other areas of law, the States mirror federal law and support and cooperate with federal enforcement agencies. If this was in any area OTHER than immigration it wouldn’t have drawn as much as a yawn from the open borders crowd.
AJM: Yep, I think you’re absolutely right. So how is Duncan D. holding up under fire? He seems to be holding his own.
DH: Oh, he’s fine, absolutely. He’s doing great. In fact I came back to Washington for a funeral a couple of days ago for an old friend who had passed away – a great fighter pilot – and Duncan called me to tell me he had just won the Congressional Trap and Skeet Shooting competition between the Republicans and the Democrats. And he happily reminded me that that was something I had never done.
DH: He got the Top Gun Award.
So he’s doing fine and working hard and working lots of defense issues. As you know he’s on the Armed Services Committee.
His main issue on the immigration front is enforcing the border. The so-called anchor baby law is Brian Bilbray’s baby, which Dunc cosponsored.
You know the anchor baby law or the anchor baby movement…
AJM: I call it the anchor baby ‘misinterpretation’.
DH: Yeah. But the emphasis of that by some conservatives is, I think, a function of the frustration that the American people have in terms of not having an enforceable border. If we had an enforceable border, that would be much less of an issue right now.
AJM: That’s probably true. It would certainly help, wouldn’t it?
DH: It would solve most of the problems. If people couldn’t get across illegally, you wouldn’t have to worry about that. I think the lack of secure borders reflects a lot of things. I think the Arizona law is a function of that frustration.
AJM: That’s true, but like we talked about before, it basically mimics federal law – namely, you cannot be here if you are an illegal – and that’s why the liberals are pulling their hair out. I say “good for Arizona”, and I hope it is copied elsewhere.
DH: Yeah, it should. But once again, if you had an enforceable border, a real fence-enforced border, Arizona wouldn’t have to come up with its own way of dealing with the hordes that are here illegally. Look, all these things that we are doing right now, almost all of them are a result of our dysfunctional border. With an enforceable border, you wouldn’t have the problem of having to enforce employer sanctions; you wouldn’t have the problems of massive social costs – schools, hospitals, etc. – and the criminal justice costs we are now seeing.
AJM: Oh, absolutely. That’s the number one priority. And you’ve been working that angle for 25 years. But there is another portion of this, of people who come over legally with green cards or visas and what have you, and they overstay their allotted time, and those people need to be shown the door as well.
DH: That’s true!
AJM: So I think the Arizona law kind of takes care of both scenarios. But obviously the open borders down there is the driving problem.
AJM: I’d like to switch over to Florida, where I’m sure you heard by now that liberal governor Charlie Crist did what liberals tend to do when they are getting beaten by a conservative in a primary. That is, he jumped over to an independent, and he’s going to run as an independent. Have you heard that?
DH: No. But I’m glad to hear that from you. It’s always good to talk to you because I get a lot of bad news (laughs).
AJM: (laughs) You hadn’t heard that Charlie Crist jumped ship?
DH: Hold on one second, I’ve got a catch in my throat here. I’ll be back on the line so hold on.
DH: No, I knew he was making noises about it, but I hadn’t heard he absolutely changed parties.
AJM: Yeah, he went independent; I think it was last Thursday. He officially announced it. Like you said, he’d been hinting at it for awhile. So now, of course, it’s going to be a dogfight to see who wins that race. But I guess its one of the consequences of having that type of Republican in the party; they’ll stab you in the back when they get a chance.
DH: Yeah, that’s too bad. A divided congress is the order of the day and we have to do everything we can to keep this from happening. But sometimes it happens. Usually a function of egos.
AJM: Absolutely. But I think old Rubio still has a decent shot at it. We might be OK. The Tea Parties are all behind Rubio.
DH: Yeah, I think so.
AJM: This is my last question on politics, or I should say political races here. Are you planning to come out and endorse Chuck DeVore in the senate race in California there?
DH: You know, I’ve been so busy that I haven’t got involved in that race and haven’t endorsed anybody yet. But I really like DeVore and I got a call from the LA Times about him, about his work on the Israeli missile defense system, or the mid range missile defense systems that we started up in the 1980s. That led to the development of the Arrow defense system that is capable of taking down SCUD missiles and similar types of ballistic missiles. DeVore worked on that with us, and I appreciated that. I thought it was a great contribution to national security.
I did an interview on Chuck with the LA Times here, oh it must have been a couple of days ago. Did you see anything on that?
AJM: No. I’ll look for it now.
DH: But I like him. I think he is a good guy.
AJM: Right now, he’s got a few, good, solid folks like Jim DeMint and Jim Inhofe endorsing him, but the party, as usual, is endorsing the more ‘moderate’ Fiorina. And it’s going to be a dog fight, so he could use all the help he can get. I’m sure he’ll be happy to hear your words of encouragement.
DH: Well, I like DeVore, and I’ll see if can do that.
AJM: Well, I’d appreciate it. I gave him money. (laughs).
DH: You gave him money? Well good!
DH: Well listen, you can give money again to another good candidate. Right now we’re driving out do this thing for Nick Popaditch here in Imperial Valley, in Brawley. It’s part of his congressional district against Bob Filner.
AJM: You’re darn tootin. I’ll give a couple hundred at least to old Nick.
DH: That’s good. I’m glad that these long conversations are finally paying off for conservatives. (laughing)
AJM: (laughs) You twist my arm long enough! You keep going around the country, I’ve got like 10 of your guys I’m trying to support here! I’m going broke (laughs).
DH: You’re helping a couple of guys, aren’t you?
AJM: Yes. But hey, I tell you what, I sure appreciate the fact that you’re pushing these guys. Because frankly, every one that I’ve seen – that includes Kelly, Chris Reed, Vaughn up in Idaho – all these guys are mini Duncan Hunters. In other words they have the Reagan-Hunter conservative philosophy; and boy could we use that right now.
DH: Listen, that’s great of you to say that. I appreciate it. We’ll keep helping them.
I haven’t checked in on Jesse Kelly too much lately but I hope he goes over the top. It’s interesting, with Kelly and Vaughn Ward, you had these two Marines who are more motivated by patriotism and service to their country than anything else. That’s reflected in their military service. It’s often said that it is illogical to join the military and put yourself in harms way – the pay is low and you’re separated from your family and all those things. But those guys did that. They came back and they jumped into these primary races at a time when it did not look like Republicans would have a great year. Now that it looks like the Republicans will have a great year, late in the campaigns, State senators, who are much more calculating, have gotten into those races. So it’s kind of an interesting pattern. Don’t know if that’s occurred anywhere else. But up in Idaho, we’ve now got a state senator against Vaughn Ward, and in Arizona, where a state senator got in something like a year after Jesse Kelly got into the race. When the calculations started to look better, they got in.
AJM: Yeah, yeah. That’s another reason to thank you for pushing these conservatives. Some of these characters, including Fiorina who is up against DeVore – DeVore being a Vet too - are from the so called moderate wing of the party. They see their opportunity now so they are coming after it. Like you said, you can’t blame them, but it’s up to conservatives to get our guys through.
AJM: So I’ll support all the guys you are supporting because they are all very good.
DH: Outstanding. These long talks are really paying off now (laughs)
AJM: The trick is to convince as many people on line – in the cyber world – to do the same. That’s what I’m after.
DH: While they are at it, if they want to support Duncan Hunter for his tough stand on the border, send him money.
AJM: That’s excellent advice. How’s his race shaping up there?
DH: Oh I think he’s doing fine. I don’t think he has a tough primary. He’s got one opponent in the primary and I think he’ll be fine in the general. But Duncan’s REAL value is to go out and help other people. He’s been helping the entire team. He brought Vaughn Ward down for an event in San Diego here this last week. He wants to bring a lot of these young conservatives; he wants to bring across a team of winners here in November. So if you can help him that gives him a lot of leverage. He doesn’t raise much money for himself. I think he’s got like 130 or 140 thousand cash on hand, which is a lot. But he uses a lot of his resources to go out and help other conservatives. So it’s a great reason to campaign for Duncan or to help him. So if you like his positions, send him a check!
AJM: Well, you know what? This conversation will be posted all over the internet. Thousands of people will be reading it, and most of the people that will be reading it are conservatives. So there is some fruit being born from you having to put up with me. (laughs)
DH: Good. I’ll take credit for that when I talk to him. (laughs) I need a few points on the scoreboard.
AJM: (laughs) Listen, after your service to the country – which we hope is not ending any time soon – I don’t know how many points on the scoreboard you really need, frankly. But I guess more is always good.
DH: That’s it.
AJM: Can I switch gears on you?
DH: What’s that?
AJM: Can I switch gears on you?
DH: Sure, go right ahead.
AJM: OK. I just wanted a quick comment on the Tea Parties versus these latest May Day/immigration rallies that transpired over the last weekend. The Tea Parties, you know, they leave the grounds cleaner than when they arrived, they are polite to the police despite being fingered by the main stream media as being crazy right wing nuts. And then these May Day rallies, which were not even close to the size of the Tea Parties, breaking windows, fighting with the cops, getting violent and causing mayhem. So I’d like a comment on the contrast here.
DH: Well, as you know, there’s a double standard here that the liberals love. If they are having a radical, Marx-inspired protest, it’s an exercise in constitutional rights by liberals. And if you have a bunch of Republican octogenarians averaging 85 years of age, it’s a mob!
DH: I told you that I’ll never forget going down when they had the push for a recount, or the push for a countdown in Florida. And we had a lot of Republican activists going down to support our interpretation of the vote down there. I’ll never forget looking at that sea of older, senior citizen Republicans, and I looked at the press description of them and they spoke about them as a mob. Half of them had walkers!
DH: And the young ones were all lined up at the latte stand. They were going to go and incite violence just as soon as they got their double mocha Frappaccino!
AJM: (laughing) Shit, that’s funny!
DH: You see, my idea of a real mob is one photograph I saw of some of the people in Nancy Pelosi’s district who had the banner several years ago during an anti-war demonstration that said “we support our troops when they shoot their officers”.
AJM: Oh, I remember that.
DH: That kind of thing never draws a tough comment from the leftwing press. That’s an exercise in free speech. And as such, is sacrosanct.
AJM: Even to them, what I would call sedition, is sacrosanct to them. As long as its leftwing, right?
DH: That’s right. It’s vile.
AJM: Now I want to talk briefly about Iran. Hillary Clinton came out a month ago talking to some Jewish group and said Iran’s not complying with the negotiations and it’s time for “crippling sanctions”. And Obama has used similar terminology, ‘crippling sanction’ type terminology, to kind of pump up his chest about this whole thing. But frankly, not a damn thing has been done. Nothing had changed with regards to Iran.
DH: I think the West is too porous and lacks the political will to present a solid seam of sanctions that can’t be flanked by Iran. And in the past, as you know, the communist Chinese and the Russians have worked to blunt any meaningful sanctions. And the facts are that once you enrich enough uranium to produce a couple of systems, at that point the situation changes fairly dramatically.
I think the Iranians are following what they perceive to be the Korean model; where you talk and build, talk and build. Then one day you test your nuclear system and say ‘we’re done – there’s no reason to discuss this anymore’. I think that is what they are doing. So the question to Mrs. Clinton is: What have you been doing for the past couple of years if you are just now talking about this time really getting serious?
AJM: It’s amazing. And not just amazing, but worrisome, because at some point soon – I think you’re right – the Iranians are going to pull that silver bullet out and say ‘hey guys, we have it’.
DH: On top of that, they really don’t have to achieve 90% enrichment to develop a nuclear device. You can develop a less effective, nonetheless very deadly system with a much lower rate of enrichment. Time is not on our side.
AJM: And in small country like Israel, that would cause quite a problem if one landed.
DH: There is obviously an extreme danger there.
AJM: Yeah. Now I want to switch over once again to your favorite ‘conservative’ about whom you told Wolf Blitzer last time during the debates that “no, we don’t want to follow”, and that’s Mr. Schwarzenegger. We get an oil spill down in the gulf and all the sudden he’s coming out sounding like Nancy Pelosi saying ‘no more drilling anywhere on the coast’. I just want your take on the whole idea of the liberals and the tree-hugging republicans coming out and saying we need to ban offshore drilling.
DH: I think energy independence at this point is a security issue which is very, very serious. And certainly, we should be drilling.
The sad thing is that liberals, and people who are always testing the wind, like Schwarzenegger, they end up taking polls to decide what position they are going to have on offshore drilling at any given time in our history. Offshore drilling needs to be part of a long range, deliberate and systematic plan to achieve some level of energy independence.
That takes some discipline. It takes political discipline. That means you have to be for it even when you have an oil spill. If you change your position every time you have an oil spill, then you’ll never have it. And in the end, that means that petroleum lifeline between the United States and the Straights of Hormuz will remain a very crucial aspect of American survival. That means potentially we are going to have to project lots of military power in that region well into the future.
So energy independence is an important thing. And I think the fact that we change positions on that, or some people change positions on that as a function of the latest oil spill is a tragedy for our nation.
AJM: I couldn’t have said that better.
OK. A couple more quick ones. How’s Gunny Pop doing, since you’re going out to see him?
DH: Well, he’s been doing great. He’s moving around a lot, campaigning a lot. Every place he goes he’s well received. This guy Popaditch speaks like Ronald Reagan did. He’s very charismatic and he’s got a magnetic personality. He’s picking up lots of supporters. He’s truly achieving a grassroots organization. I think a testament to his ability is the fact that when he got in this race, the other republicans got out. I think that’s also a function of the respect that they have for him as a candidate and as a guy who truly is an American hero.
You know, he drove, he took his tank section, which is two tanks, the day before the main attack on Falluja on April 6, 2004, he took his tank section first into the city to save a Marine who had been wounded and was lying in the middle of the street about two blocks inside the city. The Gunny saved him. He moved in and pushed down an extra block to give him lots of room, to give the medics room to get him and retreat, which they did, and the Marine was saved. Then Gunny Pop said ‘I’m gonna keep on attacking, I don’t want to lose momentum’. And he took his tank and fought all night long against hordes of insurgents. He killed dozens of them with his main gun and his machine gun. All the while RPGs and bullets were bouncing off his tank. When he does that, he’s not buttoned up. He’s up in his turret where he can see and watch what’s happening. He drove that attack – himself and one other tank – almost all the way into the middle of Falluja. When he finally ran out of ammo at 4 o’clock in the morning, he cam back and the Marines resupplied him, Guadalcanal style. Hand over hand they resupplied his tank. He went back to the fight. Later that day he was hit with an RPG. That’s what took out one of his eyes.
But here’s a guy, with no sense of entitlement, no sense that he’s a victim. He got patched up. He’s out here campaigning. Great speaker. And I think he is going to win this congressional district in San Diego. So that’s what I’m doing today.
AJM: All I can say is thank God for Gunny Pop. I talked to him on the phone. We did that interview for Free Republic. I talked to his wife April. I know some of the patriots like you that support him. So yeah, if there is ever a ‘real deal’ in politics, or a real deal in just Americana, he’s it.
DH: Yeah. In fact I’ll tell you what Jim. For people that are watching this interview, reading this interview, if any of them were inclined to send money to my son after I urged them to do so, send that money to Nick Popaditch. Look him up on the internet and send that money to his website. The thing my son wants more than anything else is to get some of these great Marines and Soldiers who served with him in Iraq into the House of Representatives. He’d like that so if you got an extra $25 or $50 or $100 or several hundred bucks, send it to Nick Popaditch. You’d be helping an American hero and we’ve got a great chance of replacing a far left democrat with a good Republican conservative. And that’s much better, in my estimation, than spending money trying to decide which Republican is going to take a sure fire Republican district in a primary.
AJM: Yeah, there is something to be said for that, especially in Gunny Pop’s case. But like you said earlier, there’s also some value in trying to beat back the Schwarzenegger wing of the party in some of these open seats.
DH: That’s true.
Hold on one second, I’ve got to go through a checkpoint here.
(DH to officer: Thanks for your service.)
DH: OK. Go right ahead there Jim. Hello?
AJM: Yeah, I’m here. What kind of checkpoint is that?
DH: That was a Border Patrol checkpoint. We’re driving along Highway 8, parallel to the border here in California.
AJM: Oh, OK. You don’t have any illegal aliens in your trunk, do you?
AJM: (laughs) They waived you right through, huh?
DH: I hope you got that!
AJM: (laughing) I put you down for an emphatic “no”, don’t worry.
OK. I’ll give you one more question then I’ll let you go.
AJM: This is kind of a pretty serious policy question. You know the car bomb in Times Square last week?
AJM: Well obviously we were lucky this guy wasn’t a very talented bomb maker. But beyond that, the question I have is when you catch these guys – I mean they caught this guy about as red handed as you can get – and that to me is what George Bush defined as an enemy combatant. I don’t care about his citizenship status at that point. When you join the other team and you purposely come after your fellow citizens for the enemy team, I think that you lose your citizenship. You lose some of the basic protections we have in the normal crime fighting arena and you are now in the realm of an enemy combatant. What do you think of that?
DH: Yeah. You obviously hit on what can best be described as a strange situation. That is: If you are a uniformed soldier and you fight honorably on the battlefield, and you are captured, you don’t have the right to ….
AJM: Are you there?? Darn it. (lost signal)
(15 minutes later)
AJM: Hello Congressman, I finally got you back.
DH: Yeah, I apologize. We went through some pretty steep canyons. I was talking for about 10 minutes before I realized you were gone (laughs).
AJM: You don’t need to apologize for God’s creations. (laughs)
DH: You got the crux of the answer on that last one?
AJM: No, all I got was that you thought it odd that men in uniform who fight by the rules versus these Islamic terrorists….you were starting to go on about how we treated prisoners of war, I think.
DH: The point is if people fight in uniform in an honorable way, they don’t have a right to a lawyer and they do not have a right to habeas corpus. And they have very few of the rights we accord to common criminals. Yet, if they commit a heinous crime as a terrorist, Obama’s Justice Department gives them more, not fewer rights than soldiers do! It’s preposterous.
So, when I put together the terrorist tribunal legislation in 2006, we gave the terrorist who were at that point imprisoned in Guantanamo, we set in place a set of rules and rights for the terrorists that would approximate the same package of rights that the Nazi war criminals, who were tried at Nuremberg, received. But we did NOT give them all the rights of an American criminal defendant presently has.
I thought that was proper. And one of the challenges to civilized society in this age of Islamic terrorism is to ensure that we don’t jeopardize national security by affording a greater package of ‘rights’ to terrorists than they deserve!
So if you were looking for a discriminating factor that would result in this guy who was trying to set off a bomb in the United States, one factor would be if he had worked in another country with other terrorists. That then should cut him off from having the same body of rights as an American criminal defendant would have.
I think we have got to achieve a new standard. I like the standard that we have for the radicals that were captured in our global war on terrorists, who were ensconced in Guantanamo and other prisons. I think we did a good job. I think we afforded them enough rights where if we picked up people by accident or if there was extremely flimsy evidence against them, that they would be exonerated. But we didn’t render their prosecution impractical, like this administration seems to be attempting.
You have to realize that when you are on a battlefield, you can’t bring in a bunch of policemen to replicate the crime scene and draw chalk lines and do all the things that you do, like lift fingerprints. You have to move very quickly. And often the Americans who witnessed the fighting, who captured the terrorists, may be incapacitated or maybe even killed themselves in battle before they can come back and serve as witnesses.
So you have to have a practical system enables you to try terrorists in such a way that we are going to be able to keep a large percentage of them off the streets and off the battlefields.
AJM: I agree. But this rush to read them their Miranda rights – and Obama reads them their Miranda rights whether they are US citizens or not – this last character was a US citizen. But by not at least delaying his Miranda rights they could have had time to do a little more research. Because they since found out that he was over in Pakistan for five months training with the terrorists how to make bombs. SO that to me is a void that I think Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are introducing legislation to address this.
DH: Yeah. Well those are my general thought on this. And that is you can’t give to terrorists the same large groups of rights that we give to criminals in the United States. It would be much more difficult to keep them, to incarcerate them, and maintain them in a security institution where they can’t get out and continue to wage war and damage American interests.
AJM: Well that’s good. That’s good. I think we are on the same page.
Alright, I’ll let you go. Please say hi to Gunny Pop for me.
DH: I’ll do it. And you make a plug for him there.
AJM: I certainly will. I’ve been trying to keep up with him. They email me stuff occasionally and I post it. But its getting to be crunch time now, so I think I’d like to volunteer a little more of my time on their behalf, as well as for a few of the other guys. But he’s a good one.
DH: Hey, that’s great.
AJM: Well, we’ll catch you next week and their will be a new batch of things to address. One of these sessions, when its maybe a little quieter on the political scence, I’d like to go back and get some of your philosophical takes on the United States, the guys in US history that you admire and things of that nature that aren’t necessarily current events. More like a philosophical evaluation of the United States and conservatism.
DH: Hey listen, that’d be great. I’ll see you here a little later. Thanks a lot for calling.
AJM: OK, and when you do that DeVore thing let me know. If you just want to announce it to me, I’ll spread the word. I don’t know if you are going to do an ‘event’ for him, but when you endorse him, I’ll want to get that up as fast as possible, because the primary is coming up.
DH: Yeah, I got that. I’ll take a look at that and see if there is something I can do to be of assistance to him.
AJM: Thanks so much again for your time. Have a great day
This interview with former Congressman and conservative stalwart Duncan Hunter is the latest in an on-going series of conversations designed as one way to place Hunter’s ideas and commentary into the public sphere. His long term goal is to restore the country to its constitutional republican roots, of limited government and maximum freedom. His short term goal is to win the November 2010 elections, inserting rock ribbed conservatives into seats currently being occupied by Democrats. With any luck, Mr. Hunter may challenge for the 2012 presidency. But for now, it’s time get a Republican majority back to congress to halt the Obama agenda. This interview finds Mr. Hunter fishing in San Diego County with his grandson, DIII.
DH: Hello Jim, How are you?
AJM: Great, doing great. Today is the day you said you might have a few minutes to go on the record, so to speak. You have time?
DH: Sure, go right ahead.
AJM: First of all, we’d really like your commentary on Obama’s new nuclear policy. In a nutshell he’s basically taking nuclear retaliation off the table for about 90 percent of the previous understood contingencies, where previous presidents would not take that off the table. And I’d like your response to that.
DH: Well, I wrote a column about Obama’s initial discussions and the proposals that they made with the Russians. And it was to the effect that Obama was dismantling the American deterrent and he’s not getting anything for it. Other nations around the world are hard set to develop nuclear weapons. And I think the American reduction of nuclear deterrence in the face of that only encourages them and gives them hope that at some point they are going to come to parity with the US. I think the Chinese have a long range goal of coming to parity with the United States. And certainly it does not discourage the Iranians or North Koreans.
I think it is a colossal mistake. I think it’s obvious more and more that it is simply the ‘politics’ of trying to get some kind of deal, and being able to trumpet some kind of so-called success for the Administration, rather than a pragmatic, realistic, diplomatic move with any value to the United States whatsoever.
AJM: I think you’re right. And I think the proof in the pudding with this, Congressman, is that the day before the big ceremony – was it today or yesterday? – when he signed the ‘agreement’ with Russia, the day before in the London papers, the foreign minister of Russia said that Russia reserves the right to withdraw from these reduction agreements if they feel threatened by United States missile defenses. Basically, they are saying “if you put missile defenses into these European countries, we’re not going to abide by this agreement”.
DH: Well, Obama has already given up the missile defense deal that we had for the Czech Republic and Poland. With absolutely nothing in return. I think it is the first time that the United States has given in on the moral question of whether or not we have the right to defend ourselves. Under the Obama version of Mutually Assured Destruction there’s a presupposition that this nation is obligated to receive the first strike before it retaliates. And remain essentially unprotected to a large scale strike. I think that is a concession that shouldn’t have been made, for two reasons. One, we got nothing for it, but secondly, it’s a disservice to every ally in Europe because that is where we had proposed to place our defense systems, in Czechoslovakia and Poland, that essentially constituted the throat of the ballistic missile approach from Iran.
So giving up the ability to defend against Iranian missiles while the Iranians are moving out as quickly as they can to develop nuclear weapons and the ability to project them into European capitals, and possibly someday into the United States, is inexplicable. You know, rocket technology is not top end technology. It is essentially comprised of moving more stages onto rockets until they can reach the prescribed distance.
AJM: Yep, and China and others, I’m sure North Korea, are helping Iran right along that path as we speak.
DH: As I said before, I suspect China likes money. And that’s what the Iranians pay them with.
AJM: And I think they see a weak opponent in the Whitehouse, I honestly do.
DH: It doesn’t make a lot of difference what they “see”, it’s what they are getting! They are getting concessions from Obama with no quid pro quo. It’s remarkably naïve.
Now Gates, when he tried to put the prettiest face possible on Obama’s concession with respect to missile defenses in Europe, he said we could accomplish this with other systems. Yet we haven’t heard any more, so Obama’s intentions apparently don’t include those ‘other systems’ at this time.
One thing we could do, we could put missile defensive systems on ships; we could put them in locations in cooperation with the Russians in the Black Sea, where they would essentially cover that throat of approach into Europe. But Russia has no incentive with Obama to do so…..hold on a second, I got my grandson…(To grandson: did you see one? Did you see one?)
We’re out here fishing. We’ve got a couple of coyotes that have been howling at us.
AJM: Where are you at?
DH: Where out here in Julian in San Diego County, fishing.
AJM: Are you out on a boat right now?
DH: No, no, we’re on the shore.
AJM: Well, feel free to interrupt the call if you got a big fish on!
DH: Don’t worry. Your priority will be very low.
DH: So anyway, several things: One, we are giving up what we have always asserted is our moral right to defend ourselves against incoming ballistic missiles. And we’ve been attacked by ballistic missiles. We’ve had Americans killed by slow ballistic missiles, but nonetheless ballistic missiles, in the Middle East. And of course Saddam Hussein used them, fired ballistic missiles on Israel early on during the first Gulf War. So we are in an age of missiles and we are giving up the right to use them!!
And I think all of this was telegraphed when Obama spoke when he first went over to Russia following his election. He talked about the missile systems in Europe being quote “on the table”, open for negotiation. That was tantamount - understanding the Russian resistance to those missile emplacements - that was a very strong telegraph that he was going to fold on missiles and missile defenses in Europe.
AJM: So he folded on missile defenses and now follows it up by folding on our nuclear weapons posture as well. He’s got a twofer going. A dangerous twofer.
DH: Yeah, I couldn’t have said it better myself, Jim.
AJM: I’ll stay on the national Security front for a moment. It came out yesterday that in Obama’s new National Security Strategy, that every president goes through a couple of times during his administration, I think, they’ve purged the words Islam, Jihad, and Islamic Extremism out of the document. So there is no reference to these in our formal national security strategy.
DH: Yeah, not surprising.
AJM: What does that tell us?
DH: Well, you’re pretty good at analyzing these things, what do you think that tells us? (laughs)
AJM: He’s confused?(laughs)
DH: I want to hear! (laughs).
He’s says I’m hogging the good fishing place so I gotta move over. (I’ve had a couple of bites here little Duncan)
AJM: Yeah, move over.
DH: Listen, I’m not as concerned about the PR positions that the Administration is taking - and that’s what this is - these language concessions they’re making. These are meaningless in terms of invoking any kind of sympathy from our Islamic adversaries. They are essentially worthless.
But I’m more concerned with the REAL concessions, such as those we just talked about, such as taking down our defenses. I’m less concerned with the cosmetics, generally.
AJM: Yeah, but there is an angle to it, trying to get these guys to like us more, or something more….
DH: As I mentioned before, Obama can’t change the reality of the war by changing to politically correct language anymore than FDR could have proclaimed the War was over in 1943. But I’m not so worried about that. I’m more concerned with real things. I think they got a lot of people, leftwingers, with time on their hands sitting around trying to figure out how we can re-educate someone like Osama Bin Laden and his pals. It’s dumb, but I’m more concerned with the real detrimental activities Obama has undertaken, such as conceding our missile defenses in Europe and now making these misguided new concessions - the reduction of our nuclear systems, as well as the rules of engagement on the battlefield. That is cause for real alarm!
Another thing about Obama’s nuclear surrender: These things are usually a forerunner to massive American expenditures. Under the Nunn-Lugar program, we are the guys who paid for dismantling these things, so it is really a work program, we created a massive work program for the Russians. We constructed a $100 million plant to neutralize heptyl, which is rocket fuel . When we got finished with it, it looked like a massive oil refinery on the horizon. It cost the US taxpayers $100 million. At the ribbon cutting, the Russians happily informed us that there was no heptyl; that they converted it all over to their space program.
DH: So we basically did a $100 million jobs program for Russia. We then put in another $100 million plant. After we spent $100 million on site preparation, we were informed it would not be possible to get the permits from the locals. So gee, can we give them another $100 million somewhere else in Russia?
So the bureaucrats that administered Nunn-Lugar, historically have acted like farmers who fell off a dozen turnip trucks before they got to the negotiating table. Obama fell off and got run over by the wheels.
But one thing I tried to get the Clinton Administration to do on Nunn-Lugar was to actually have American site managers at these sites to ensure that the waste and fraud was not taking place and that we were accomplishing real things. They always resisted that. So the American oversight of Russian weapons destruction has basically consisted of fly-ins, where small teams of Americans would fly in for a couple of days, get briefed by the bemused Russians, then get back in their chairs on the plane and promptly doze off for their trip back to the United States.
There’s never been substantial oversight on any of these Nunn-Lugar programs. And with these Obama negotiated draw downs, there will be requests now from the Russians to the United States to pay for any dismantlement to take place. So Obama will create another jobs program for the Russians. And the message from the Russians will be: ‘Gee, if you don’ pay for this dismantlement we’re going to have a lot of security problems with our weapons, and you don’t want that now do you Americans?’
They sucked in billions of US taxpayers’ dollars under Nunn-Lugar, and most of it wasted.
AJM: Speaking of Nunn-Lugar, he’s always touted in the main stream media as being some kind of great foreign policy guru…
DH: Nunn-Lugar is two people. (laughs) It’s not one. There is nobody named Nunn Lugar, but he would be a guru! (laughing)
AJM: No, no. Very funny. Dick Lugar. I’m talking about Lugar. Sam Nunn was a democrat, so we all expect this kind of stupidity from a democrat. But why is Lugar held up as some kind of foreign policy expert? Seems he’s on the wrong side of a lot of these issues.
DH: (Whoa whoa, I had one Duncan, did you see that?) Hold on here. My bobber just went down like a rock.
AJM: No problem. I’ll hold…..
DH: Yeah, he is given lots of praise by the democrats, it seems. But I’m more interested in talking about things, not people. I’m sure Mr. Lugar means well, but you can’t have almost no verification that results in massive waste!
The other point is that US expenditures have kept the nuclear weapons teams, in many cases, together in Russia. Because American tax dollars have kept these laboratories open and kept people with weapons expertise collecting a paycheck, courtesy of Dick Lugar. And we’ve since had inklings of that, of diversions of that talent to such projects as the facilities that Russia has been constructing for the Iranians, for example.
So we’re maintaining the nuclear weapons base for the Russians and Nunn-Lugar is being counterproductive. Mr. Obama will likely make it even worse.
AJM: So it’s not just a jobs program, but a jobs program for weapons scientists?
DH: Yeah. Exactly.
Hold on one second here, I’ve got to get something untangled. (Here, take this, I’ll get this one out. Grampa’s got a big hook in, look, I got one bobbin! Hold on. Don’t reel yet, watch it. You leave that one out there. We’re gonna get a big fish on yours…)
Jim, you still there?
AJM: Sure am. I’ll move on to the next question here. We found out this week also, in regards to ObamaCare, that if you do not follow the prescribed mandate that you go out and buy, that an individual has to go out and buy insurance, that the IRS is going to make sure that you do, or they will extract it from you one way or another – either withholding refunds or sending you a bill.
DH: I think that is why they are hiring the extra several thousands of workers, or they announced that they will. Have you heard that?
AJM: Yeah, yeah.
DH: So the IRS is going to be ObamaCare’s collection agency. Instead of a friendly doctor’s face, Americans are going to be confronted by the less than friendly face of the Internal Revenue Service. I think that is somewhat foreboding.
You know, behind every leftwing, ‘friendly’ democrat program, there is a hard nosed enforcer.
AJM: (laughs) And if you don’t cough up the money, if you don’t pay the bill, I wonder what happens after that, Hmmm?
DH: They’ll levy some hefty fines, I take it; come knock on the door….
AJM: And I imagine they’ll garnish your wages. It’s something that will be overturned, I pray. In the meantime, are you aware, I believe it is up to 19 states now, 19 states attorneys general or governors that have joined a lawsuit to argue that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. What do you think of that?
DH: Well, I haven’t read all the particulars, but in part it seems unconstitutional on its face, and other parts maybe not. They’ll probably try to force it on the states as part of the commerce clause of the constitution.
AJM: Yeah, I think that’s what they are arguing, that the commerce clause does not allow the federal government to tell people the have to buy something.
DH: Well, if you’re a constitutional conservative and you believe in the proposition of decentralized government, and residual power going to the states, then you’d probably instinctively oppose ObamaCare on constitutional grounds. On the other hand, there are a number of instances where the commerce clause has been considered pre-emptive in those cases, unfortunately.
AJM: Yeah, I think the commerce clause is one of the most abused parts of the constitution in allowing what you and I believe is over reach, not just on ObamaCare but over the years, I think.
DH: Absolutely. On the other hand, some of the states have managed to grab their share of power. (Give me a worm). Jim, you still there?
DH: One reason you have mandates such as alcoholism treatment, fertility treatment, and these other mandates that by the force of law have to be included in any insurance policy sold in some states, that’s the function of an over-bearing and well contributed to State government. Where these industry lobbyists such as the fertility people in Massachusetts, the chiropractors almost everywhere, and institutions for alcoholism rehab, and mental health folks go to all the right fundraisers and they get their programs mandated by the state legislators for any insurance policy sold within that state’s borders.
That means that people who don’t drink are forced to purchase alcoholism treatment coverage, people who are 90 years old, in Massachusetts for example, are forced to purchase coverage for fertility treatment. While we can appreciate Governor Romney’s optimism, 90 year olds may not need it, or want it!!
See, the states do that. You have the heavy hand of government being exercised at two levels; the states and the feds.
AJM: Absolutely. I think conservatives want to roll both back.
DH: So just be wary of the states that claim they want to “free the people”. They want to free them about as far as the next cocktail party that their state assemblymen and state senators hold where they invite these peripheral medical treatment industries into a mandated position with respect to their insurance programs.
AJM: Yeah, yeah. I think this alludes to one of the most effective things that you recommended that we do for healthcare, and that is to get rid of these agreements, what do you call that, not monopolies but…
DH: Allow people to buy their healthcare insurance across state lines!
AJM: Yeah, what is that called, when they have an agreement to allow 2 or 3 companies to operate in a particular state? It’s kind of like baseball with their non-compete clause.
DH: The franchise agreements. You see, that’s the place where the federal government could actually be helpful, using the commerce clause. Just as you have a right to buy shoes or clothes or cars, or car insurance, over the state line, you ought to be allowed to buy an insurance policy over state lines.
AJM: Absolutely. That would do more, that would do a ton to reduce the cost of health insurance in this country.
DH: Yeah, at one time, Massachusetts had the same policy, according to one study, for $750 that could be purchased for about $170 in Missouri. But it was against the law for a Massachusetts citizen to purchase the Missouri policy.
So you’ve got government at all levels reaching in to grab a part of the healthcare pie and insert their economic interests between doctors and patients. That’s one reason health care costs keep going up.
The government has become a huge middleman. A very well paid middleman. And the difference between the government as a middleman and these other industries, such as the trial lawyers, is only the government can use the IRS to enforce its will!
They understand that people aren’t going to want to pay them.
AJM: Yeah, yeah, they can compel it. Something interesting about California I read the other day, just as an aside, is that your state, for the state emplyees’ pension fund, is underfunded by $500 billion?
DH: No, I didn’t realize it was quite that high. I knew it was bad, but not that high.
AJM: I mean, how can they ever recoup that money for all these soon to retire people? $500 billion?
DH: Yeah. It’s going to be a long haul, especially since California, by being unfriendly to business is chasing all the wagon pullers out of the state, and we are going to end up being a state which is primarily or largely populated by what Phil Graham called ‘wagon riders’. That is, people that aren’t interested in pulling the economic wagon but they like to ride in it and receive the benefits.
But by having 50 states, at least you do have competition between state governments. Conservatives in state governments are able to point to other states which are more friendly to business and hopefully bring them back to a line that is consistent with economic freedom.
San Diego county, or the City of San Diego essentially worked a series of transactions with the pension funds, with the government pension fund people in San Diego where it was extremely profitable to retire as a city employee. And it has bankrupted San Diego, which as you know has a very large and strong tax base.
DH: So San Diego now is in terrible shape. State government, all government is an extension of human nature. That is to get more, to have more, to control more. And left unchecked…
(Whoa, look at it Duncan. Get it! Get it! He got it. Did you see it, he took it all the way down! See that? Okay, watch. We had a good fish on there. Duncan, that was a monster!)
Hold on one second Jim, we had a big fish on there.
So left unchecked, government at all levels will suffocate the people. One illustration of heavy handed government is these ‘neighborhood associations’, the leadership of which is usually taken over by very active, aggressive people who no longer work and have lots of time on their hands. So you end up with rules that you have to paint your house a certain color or you get fined, you’ve got to trim your posies to a certain length or you get fined, and God help anybody who wants to make an addition like a deck or an additional fence or any architectural change to their house. They’ll think they’re in Stalingrad by the time they get finished.
DH: The point is that government at all levels is like this. People that insert themselves into government end up extending their own proclivities for control and regulation to their fellow man.
That was one reason why Ronald Reagan was so great. Ronald Reagan wasn’t taken the idea, he had no appetite for controlling people. I thought one of the great examples of that was – I think it was in Don Regan’s book – where he told the story of how he, Don, magnificently chewed out the air conditioning people in the Whitehouse when it was too cold one day. The heating wasn’t working. He said he walked in and there was the President of the United States wearing a sweater, saying “it’s OK Don, I’ll put on a sweater”. Don Regan, by gosh, was going to have their heads. Regan thought that was an example of Reagan’s ineptness and his need for Regan. And actually, it was an example of his great character. He didn’t have a burning desire to browbeat and regulate people. He wasn’t like Jimmy Carter who wanted to make sure he laid down the schedule for the Whitehouse tennis court. He didn’t want to control people like that.
AJM: (laughs) Good story. I’ve been following politics very closely since Reagan. His second term was my very first vote. I’ve been following politics since then very closely, as you probably can tell, and I think right now, with the tea parties, and some of the more conservative members of the GOP, including yourself I must say, speaking up and asserting themselves, I feel that we are going to move the ball on this whole nanny state mentality this coming election. Do you feel that optimism?
DH: Yeah, I do. I think this is a year with enormous potential for our constitution. But it is only going to translate into a changed Congress with lots of hard work. You’ve got a party in power, the Democrat Party, which is very adept at figuring out which way the parade is going and trying to insert themselves into part of the parade, and finessing their way through tough elections.
AJM: Bill Clinton was the master.
DH: So we’ve got to continue to work hard. Our future is at stake.
Incidentally, did you get over to help Vaughn Ward over in Idaho?
AJM: Not yet, I only sent him a check. But what I’d like to do is interview him and put it up on the blogs and at Free Republic, like we did for old Gunny Pop.
DH: Well do that!
AJM: I’ll try. I’ll try to get a hold of him. But he never had a phone number on his campaign website. At least he didn’t a couple of months ago.
DH: Well just call up Vaughn Ward for Congress in Boise. They’ve got to be listed. Or just call up the republican Party of Idaho and get his number.
AJM: I can do that. But before he didn’t have any contact information…
DH: I like you high tech guys. (laughs) It’s called punching a phone number in. You make your fingers work about 18 times. 208-555-1212, that’s information for Boise. Ask for the Republican Party, High-techie, they’ll give you a number. Call ‘em up and ask them for Vaughn Ward’s number.
AJM: (laughs) I’ll take that under advisement and probably do just that. We’ll get him hooked up for an interview soon and help spread the word.
AJM: Yeah, he’s a good one. You didn’t see him on Hannity, did you?
DH: No, I didn’t.
AJM: He came across really well. I tell you, you pick ‘em good. He sounds like a very solid conservative.
DH: Oh yeah. He’s a good guy, a good conservative. He really is.
AJM: I’ll let you go here, but I want to get in one more quick question. That is Obama’s announcement the other day that he’s opening up parts of the Virginia Coast, parts of the eastern seaboard, and parts of the gulf to offshore drilling, while simulataneously closing everything else to offshore drilling. And I’ve got a quote from Mike Pence that said, I’m paraphrasing: “Only in DC, when you ban more area than you open up for oil and gas, and delay the leases of the existing contracts, do you call that an improvement”.
I don’t know exactly what Obama’s game plan is, but he’s doing the opposite of what he says he’s doing, he’s actually closing more area than opening up.
DH: I would think with the huge liberal constituency that he is counting on this next election, I’d be very surprised if he really opened what I would call ‘net acreage’; increased acreage when you subtract the closed portion from the open portion.
If you want a more informed answer to that question you’ll have to get the take of the people who actually drill for oil and natural gas and find out if the areas he’s opened actually have any potential. You can open an area that has been proven to have no resources. And Obama can point to a large acreage. But if the acreage is not acreage that harbors oil and gas, then it’s all a charade.
I haven’t had the chance yet to look at the acreage being opened and I haven’t seen an analysis by anybody in the oil and gas industry.
But I think this. In their heart of hearts, a lot of the Nancy Pelosi people, and that means a lot of the Obama people, actually want to see $5 a gallon gasoline. They think that petroleum is evil! And we are never going to get to using their favored means of energy, these so called green energies, unless you essentially render the price of gasoline to the point where the average guy can’t afford to power his vehicle. I think a lot of those people, a lot of the extreme liberals like Obama, see any attempt to increase production of oil and gas in America putting off their day of reckoning when their favorite, mythical sources of energy will be utilized.
AJM: I agree. But they pretend that they are interested in weaning us off of Arab oil, but they do literally nothing to make that come about. And that was something you’ve been a proponent of – let’s drill baby drill – and get our domestic supply secure. So I think there are national security implications that the democrats are impeding, despite the rhetoric.
DH: Yeah. Obviously, energy has always had national security implications. The communist Chinese understand that. They are doing everything they can to lock up energy supplies all over the world, even in our own back yard. Meanwhile, Obama and Pelosi are catering to old hippies.
AJM: So it appears. Now your book? You told me some months ago you were writing a book, or a series of proposals to become a book. What’s become of that?
DH: Well it’s coming along pretty good. Except for being interrupted, I’m working on it quite a bit.
AJM: Sounds like you’re fishing to me! (laughs)
DH: (laughs) I’m about done with one. (inaudible) I’ve got one about finished.
Well listen, we are going to have to move our fishing spot. For some reason the fish haven’t been as receptive here as I thought they would be.
AJM: You know why, don’t you?
DH: We’re fishing like Jimmy Carter. I just got a hook with a little note on it that says “Trust me”.
AJM: (laughs). You’re talking so much you are spooking them!
DH: I know it! We’re gonna be quiet now. But listen, thanks for calling. I appreciate it.
AJM: OK. You have a great day.
Alexander J. Madison - March 22, 2010
10. Although Duncan Hunter’s name is nearly synonymous with the Border Fence on the US-Mexico border (at least the part of the REAL fence that is working), he should also be known for his stances on abolishing the ‘anchor baby’ laws, beefing up the numbers of Border Patrol officers, scuttling all benefits to illegal aliens, snuffing out the notion of “sanctuary cities”, and, most importantly, standing firm on his position that illegal aliens must be deported. It is the same position he came to Congress with in 1980. It has not changed. When asked during his 2008 presidential primary run by the Washington Post what he would do with the millions already here, Hunter responded:
“You realize we deport thousands of people every month? We tell folks, ‘You have to go home. Make your country a good country. Put pressure on your government if you don’t like things. Get after those congressmen in Mexico and those congressmen in other countries”.
Asked again in December 2009 why he opposes any kind of amnesty, he told Conservative Central:
“The effect of calling an amnesty when reviewed in the historic context – that is the 3 million folks who were given amnesty in the 1980s when Congress said ‘now this time we really mean it, read the fine print – nobody else gets to get in’. They obviously let their friends and neighbors and relatives know that they got amnesty and so you had, which was entirely predictable, another wave of people heading north expecting to catch the 2nd amnesty. So as the credibility of the US government for enforcement slides lower and lower, if we get a second amnesty, if anyone thinks there won’t be another vast wave of illegal aliens coming in anticipation of a third amnesty, then I think we can sell those folks the Brooklyn Bridge fairly quickly. They are extremely gullible. Of course there will be a big wave of people.”
11. On the hair-brained idea for a “virtual border fence” – the kind touted by Republican know-nothings like Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, along with the Democrats – that was just cancelled due to poor performance, Hunter had this to say in an interview last week:
Now I also told the good Senators and Homeland Security that the “Virtual Fence” would be virtually worthless. And they’ve now killed the thing. Yeah, the virtual fence has now been abandoned. I told them further that they’d pay Boeing a fortune. Boeing had never come in under cost on any project they’ve ever done for the American taxpayer, whether its military aircraft or a virtual fence.
They must have got tired of looking at the field reports, where the Border Patrolmen had their laptops bouncing off the ceiling as they were vectoring left and right in the open deserts as bands of illegal aliens zigzagged on them in the dark of night.
The virtual fence was one of the dumbest acts in show business yet they were able to propose and pitch this thing - and pay for it – with a straight face.
But you’ll notice nobody is suggesting that they put a virtual fence around the Whitehouse. They decided to keep a real one.
12. Some people, mainly political opponents of Duncan Hunter, have claimed that since he is staunchly and unapologetically Pro-AMERICAN manufacturing and not a free-trade kool aid drinker, that he is some kind of Union flack. Nothing could be further from the truth. While Hunter is not anti-union - pointing out that some Unions, historically, were more anti-communist than many in his own party - he has a pretty poor ‘scorecard’ from the AFL-CIO. They rated him at 20% in 2003 and 2005, indicating an ‘anti-union’ voting record. The UAW’s ratings for Hunter were even less, and his ratings from the NEA, and other government unions; worse still. Meanwhile, despite his anti-WTO, anti-NAFTA, and anti-sovereignty usurping, supranational entity stands in general, Hunter has an US Chamber of Commerce lifetime rating of 84. That is higher than various libertine ‘free-traders’ and China suck-ups such as Jeff Flake (71), John McCain (82), and Ron Paul (62).
Better yet, Hunter was rated 100% by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and awarded the “Guardian of Small Business Award” in 2002, with the President of the Federation saying Hunter is a “true and consistent advocate for Main Street small business.” He also rated 100% from Gary Bauers’ pro- business Campaign for Working Families.
13. Duncan Hunter is the antithesis of the nanny-state politician. In addition to being a true believer that Americans “do not want to become Europeans”, Hunter was instrumental in pushing welfare reform onto the Clinton Administration. In fact, to Hunter, the legislation was not nearly tough enough. Hunter has a 15% rating from RESULTS, the liberal “anti-poverty” group, 0% from ARC which focuses on federal funds for the mentally retarded, 8% from the Humane Society Legislative Fund, 0% from the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund (despite Hunter’s great appreciation for mounting elk heads in his home), and 10% from the Social Security pimping Alliance for Retired Americans (Hunter wants to privatize SS).
Hunter also received a whopping 4% rating from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights which specializes in pushing the homosexual agenda (compared to 9% for Mike Pence, 26% for Thad McCotter), 14% from the National Farmer’s Union – despite representing an agricultural dependent area, 7% from the National Association of Wheat growers, 0% from the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and a blazing 5% from the Republicans for Environmental Protection (even old James Inhofe rated a 10% with these fruitcakes).
Hunter led the charge in 2003 to exempt military installations from endangered species laws, saying “These troops need to have places to train, and these training grounds are becoming more and more restricted because of applications, and I think wrongful applications, of our environmental laws.” He told the North County Times, “We went at this with the viewpoint that the most important endangered creature is the 19-year-old Marine rifleman.”
Hunter was rewarded with a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters.
But perhaps the most illustrative thing Hunter said regarding the nanny state was given to the Des Moines Register, who asked each GOP Republican Candidate the same question: What do you want to be remembered for after you leave the Presidency? Hunter’s response was the shortest answer and the best one of the lot. He said, “I would like to see a country where the day I walk out of the White House, after a couple of terms, the American people are more independent of government than the day that I walked in.”
14. Sovereignty reigns supreme with Hunter. This article from Congressional Quarterly in July 2007 shows us what Hunter thought about President Bush’s Security and Prosperity Partnership with Mexico and Canada and the associated toll road “superhighway” that Slick Rick Perry was trying to build. As excerpted:
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, who has spent much of his Republican presidential campaign thus far stumping to security-conscious conservatives, threw his constituency a bone July 24.
As House consideration of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development spending bill (HR 3074) ground to a close around midnight, Hunter added language that would partially block funding for a White House-led group — the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, in which the United States, Mexico and Canada participate.
Sounds like bland stuff, except that some conservatives believe the group is secretly pushing for the construction of a “NAFTA superhighway” from Canada to Mexico, via a private toll road planned across Texas.
“It’s time, before they facilitate this multimodal operation, for the administration to consult Congress,” Hunter said, adding that he is concerned about national security risks. Some conservatives, such as political activist Phyllis Schlafly, see such a cross-border highway as the first step to establishing a mini-European Union for North America.
The White House-led group could not be reached for comment, but its Web site dismisses as myth the idea that it has plans for a NAFTA superhighway or that it’s working toward an economic merger of the three countries.
The Whitehouse slammed Hunter for cutting off the funds, calling his allegations of untoward schemes for a NAFTA superhighway and such a “myth”. To which Hunter replied wryly, “then they have nothing to worry about then, do they?”
15. Duncan Hunter has always stood firmly on the side of recognizing and celebrating America’s Christian heritage. While others cower in the face of Political Correctness, Hunter is unapologetic in his stances, whether it is abortion, displaying the 10 Commandments on public property, or, in this case, prayer in schools. A 1984 article (excerpted) from the San Diego Union Tribune, titled School Prayer Proposal Pushed by Hunter in House sheds some light on the subject:
With the fate of President Reagan’s proposal for school prayers in doubt, a San Diego area congressman is doing his best to get the idea moving in the House of Representatives.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Coronado, belongs to an informal group of like-thinking House members who have dubbed themselves the Conservative Opportunity Society.
When the 60 or so members met Feb. 29, they turned at Hunter’s instigation to the emotional, controversial and highly topical issue of prayer in public schools.
Hunter proposed that a bipartisan group conduct an all-night discussion of school prayer on the floor of the House.
What resulted was the participation of 51 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the longest “special order” on a single issue in the history of the House. A special order is time reserved for discussing an issue after the regular business of the day is concluded.
But many senators seemed unimpressed. Yesterday, the Senate rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would permit silent meditation in public schools, a compromise proposal that fell well short of the spoken prayer advocated by Reagan and Hunter.
“The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the firm belief in a Supreme Being. I think it is ironic that we in Congress start each day with a prayer, but public school children are denied the same right,” he says. (snip)
Hunter’s efforts didn’t go unnoticed at the White House.
A few hours after the talkathon ended, Hunter received a call from President Reagan, who is the most prominent advocate of the school prayer amendment. Reagan said he had received a number of calls from supporters of the amendment, saying they had seen the House proceedings on television.
16. Move away from the Ted Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party! The New Hampshire Republican primary debate in 2007 had this little exchange which hit the nail on the head and coined a new wing of the GOP:Wolf Blitzer: Congressman Hunter, I want you to weigh in. Arnold Schwarzenegger, your governor in California, has become very popular out there by bringing in independents and moderates and trying to forge a consensus among Republicans and Democrats in your state. Shouldn’t the GOP nationally be following that Arnold Schwarzenegger example in California?
Hunter: No! And let me just say, I look at Governor Romney, Mayor Giuliani, my good friend John McCain. Governor Romney joined with Bill Clinton for the 1994 gun ban, when I was fighting that. Mayor Giuliani stood with him at the Whitehouse for that. Governor Romney has passed what I consider to be a major step toward socialism with respect to his mandated health care bill. John McCain is standing strong with Ted Kennedy on this Kennedy-McCain-Bush border enforcement bill. I think the guy who’s got the most influence right here with these three gentlemen is Ted Kennedy. And I think we need to move away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party.
17. In 2007, a year before the Paulson/Bush/Pelosi “house on fire” crisis “requiring” a banking bailout, the State of California was pushing the feds for a sub prime mortgage bailout, and pushing hard. Schahrzad Berkland of the California Housing Forecast decided to write to Duncan Hunter to find out what his position was for his home state’s federal sub prime bailout request. Berkland, apparently a conservative, or at least a fiscally sane businessman, was happy with Hunter’s written response.
Hunter wrote, in part: “I share your belief that it is not the role of government to step in when people have made an unwise business decision. The disclosure requirements imposed on lenders provide consumers with the information they need to decide on the best loan available to them. Rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should this issue come before the House. Furthermore, we must promote personal responsibility not government dependence.”Hunter, of course, went on to vigorously and vocally oppose the Paulson/Bush/Pelosi “crap sandwich” the next year as well. Unlike Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Obama, Romney, Pawlenty, Palin, Reid, Gingrich, and the rest of the usual suspects.
Duncan Hunter for President 2012 — Reasons 1 through 9
Alexander J. Madison - March 9, 2010
1. In 2003, early in the Iraq war, a brave patriot named Lt. Col. Allen B. West acted to save the lives of the men he was commanding in Iraq, by firing his pistol next to a terrorist’s head and threatening to kill the SOB in order to get him to reveal a planned sniper attack, after other interrogation methods failed. The terrorist began singing like a bird, and the ambush was avoided. Yet the military JAGS decided to recommend Lt. Col. West for Court Martial or other “punishment” for his decisive actions. When Congressman Duncan Hunter, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, found out about it, he fired off a letter to the Secretary of the Army saying he was “highly disturbed” by the decision to punish West, and that West’s actions “were necessary to protect the lives and safety of his men”. Eventually, West was fined $5000 and allowed to retire with full benefits. Hunter has stated repeatedly that our Rules of Engagement must allow our guys to “One, destroy the enemy and Two, protect themselves”.
2. In 2004, at the beginning of the Bush/McCain Amnesty push, a constituent wrote a letter to Hunter asking him to oppose amnesty. Hunter’s letter in response to his constituent, consists in part:
“As you may know, amnesty occurred in 1986 and, rather than ending the problem of illegal immigration to the U.S., this action resulted in an influx of illegal aliens crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Unfortunately, I’m concerned that the President’s proposal will also fail to address the issue of illegal immigration and widespread disdain of our employment laws. California already has among the largest population of undocumented aliens, and these individuals place a severe strain, financial and otherwise, on our state and local resources.
“In the first ten years after the 1986 amnesty, the Center for Immigration Studies found the direct and indirect costs of services and benefits was more than $78 billion, or about $26,000 per legalized alien. Aliens who get amnesty use expensive social services, particularly health care. According to one estimate, the cost of providing federally-mandated health care to illegal immigrants is between $1.5 billion and $2 billion annually. The citizens of the four border states pay a disproportionate share of these costs.
“The President’s proposal will be closely scrutinized by Congress and I can assure you that I will work on behalf of an immigration reform bill that addresses the proliferation of illegal aliens, protects American jobs and secures our borders”.
And he certainly did not disappoint, being the leader of the movement, along with the American people, to scuttle the Kennedy-McCain-Bush amnesty in 2007, when most of his colleagues, even Mike Pence, were going wobbly.
3. During 2004, when the big push was on by McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the democrats to “reform” intelligence by consolidating US Intel assets under one intelligence czar – including DOD intel – Hunter swung into action and rallied the Generals to kill this stupid idea. The Washington Times reporter Rowan Scarborough wrote the following (excerpted) under the headline “Hunter used Myers Letter to Defeat Senate Bill”:
Rep. Duncan Hunter convened a hearing last week with the Joint Chiefs of Staff that put in place the final chess piece in a high-stakes battle to defeat the Senate’s version of a far-reaching intelligence reform bill.
Mr. Hunter, a California Republican who chairs the House Armed Services Committee and is a key ally of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, already had secured a letter of support from Gen. Richard B. Myers, the Joint Chiefs chairman.
In the letter, Gen. Myers endorsed Mr. Hunter’s — not the Senate’s — version of the intelligence reform bill because it "maintains this vital flow of resources through the secretary of defense to the combat-support agencies," that is, to intelligence collectors.
At the hearing, Mr. Hunter read the excerpt to the chiefs of the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy. The four-star officers heartily endorsed Gen. Myers’ position.
Mr. Hunter now had the top brass behind him to defeat language in the Senate bill that he saw as giving a new director of national intelligence too much power to control the systems and product of Pentagon spy agencies. With Fallujah as a backdrop, Mr. Hunter worried that the Senate bill "translates into ineffectiveness on the battlefield and, at worse, combat casualties," he told The Washington Times yesterday.
4. In his last Congress session before retirement, Duncan Hunter for the umpteenth time, introduced legislation, the Right to Life Act, a bill that would legally recognize that unborn children are human beings, entitled to the protections of life under the US Constitution. Hunter accompanied his submission of the bill with the following (partial) statement:
“Our greatest obligation as elected leaders is to protect the American people, especially those who are incapable of protecting themselves. On this anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, it is important that we reflect on the 38 million abortions that have been performed in this country since the practice was legalized in 1973. This is a national tragedy that must not go unnoticed.
“This legislation ensures that the unborn are protected from abortion and further provided the same Constitutional protections provided to all Americans. I am proud to once again introduce this important piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this effort as they have in the previous Congress.”
5. For his entire career, Duncan Hunter has been the bane of Environmentalist wackos, who have consistently rated him at or near the bottom of their Congressional ‘Report Cards’. A story from the San Diego Union Tribune may help explain this, as well as explain how Hunter has been the most forceful critic of the nanny state. The following is excerpted from a December, 1994 titled “Hunter urges deep EPA, OSHA cuts” in the Tribune:
Rep. Duncan Hunter would slash funding for federal agencies that oversee environmental protection and workplace safety to "free up that heavy hand on free enterprise and promote economic growth”.
Appearing on the public television show "TechnoPolitics," taped for broadcast this weekend, the El Cajon Republican called for substantial cuts in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
"I think we’re going to have to cut the budget of the EPA. I think we should cut 30 to 50 percent," Hunter said.
"Government is an industry unto itself. . . . Agencies work to build their kingdoms. And they build their kingdoms by defining new regulations for people to comply with and by enforcing those regulations.
"If you cut their resources, where they don’t have a lot of spare time to go out and bother people . . . then by definition, you’re going to free up that heavy hand on free enterprise and free people, and we’re going to be a more productive country."
Hunter continues his war with the EPA to this very day, calling their proposal to regulate CO2 “inexplicable” and calling out the global warming alarmists (in 2009 before the ClimateGate emails were exposed) by saying: “I think there is a shortage of solid science on the part of the ‘global warmers’. The former head of the American Academy of Sciences, who passed away several years ago, was a staunch foe of this global warming concept. If you look for the hard science, you’ll see there is much less hard science than there are speeches promoting the concept of global warming”.
6. During the 1994 Legislative debates over the grandiose Clinton Crime Bill, Republicans were folding like a house of cards and falling in line with Clinton and his infamous “midnight basketball” crime bill. More ominously, Clinton’s bill had the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban”, the AWB, front and center, outlawing scary looking military ‘style’ semi-automatic rifles. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giluiani were both cheerleading this Crime Bill. Duncan Hunter, on the other hand, was outraged that the supposedly ‘conservative’ Republican Party would go along with this crap, as opposed to his pork-free, AWB-free alternative bill. The Copley News Service captured the essence of his anger in the following (excerpted) article from August, 1994 titled “Clinton deftly plied House GOP to get crime bill”:
The way Rep. Duncan Hunter of El Cajon views the crime bill vote, too many of his fellow Republicans consorted with the enemy.
It was Republicans, after all, who gave President Clinton one of his biggest legislative victories of the year: 46 House Republicans jumped the GOP ship Sunday to vote for the controversial $30 billion package.
Hunter argues that too many of them voted for a flawed bill because they had cut deals with the Democrats to win a little legislative influence.
"Ultimately, they sold their votes to the White House," Hunter said yesterday. "They were obligated."
Hunter was co-author of an alternative crime bill that he claims could have passed had fewer Republicans defected to the other side. A resolution to send the crime bill back to the House-Senate conference committee and to consider Hunter’s bill was defeated 232-197.
The lack of support illustrates the debate within the Republican party about how best to influence policy: whether to deal with the Democrats or confront Clinton and his party head-on.
For the record, Hunter has received “A” ratings from the Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association his entire career, and was instrumental in blocking legislation to renew the assault weapons ban during the Bush presidency.
7. An illustrative example of the conservative versus RINO split occurred in 1995, after the GOP had won back the House for the first time in 40 years, based largely on their Contract with America. Part of the Contract called for cutting off welfare funds for newly arrived legal immigrants, who by law were supposed to either have their own means of support or have “sponsors” to support them. A no brainer, hence it landed in the Contract with America. Newt Gingrich ran away from this provision, even signaling ahead of time that he would do so, while Duncan Hunter was adamant about slicing another $22 billion out of the bloated federal budget. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette covered the drama in a liberal hit piece titled “AN ALIEN IDEA DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO LEGAL IMMIGRANTS IS UNFAIR”. An Excerpt:
Just two days after Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich backed back away
from a proposal to make legal immigrants ineligible for welfare benefits, a GOP lawmaker introduced legislation to do just that.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, would bar legal immigrants from receiving food stamps, housing assistance, Supplemental Security Income and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Immigrants would have three years to become citizens or lose their benefits.
Earlier, Mr. Gingrich, declaring that he was "very pro-legal immigration," had said that the plan, which was written into the GOP’s Contract with America, would have to be "revisited."
Mr. Gingrich said the proposal — which would have affected most of the country’s 8.8 million legal immigrants — was written before Republicans knew they would be in control of Congress and able to find other creative solutions. Insisting that the GOP shouldn’t be held to the details of its contract, he said: "We are not going to get trapped into doing something dumb just so you all can say we’re consistent."
The legislation introduced by Rep. Hunter would save an estimated $22 billion over five years. That’s money the Republicans need to help pay for other welfare reform proposals, tax cuts and other budget-balancing proposals.
And that gap between real conservatives like Hunter and opportunist Republicans like Gingrich has grown ever since.
8. When asked in a March 2010 interview what he thought about Mr. Obama’s new Hope and Change Foreign Policy and the disastrous results to date – including unhappy rumblings from allies Poland, Great Britain, Turkey, and France, Duncan Hunter replied:
“I think this is the 2nd phase of the Obama foreign policy philosophy or foreign policy operations which was to prostrate, in the first phase, to prostrate himself before the world and deliver a number of applause lines to the effect that the United States is not a very good country and is sorry for all of our ‘transgressions’.
“That type of a prostration invites countries to despise us. In the end, countries don’t respect other nations that have no self respect, or appears to have a leader that does not respect his own country. The cheap applause that he got in his early trips has now evolved into resentment in some cases.”
And in regard to Obama de-funding Missile Defenses for ourselves and our allies?
“The United States – you know it’s often said that countries don’t have friends, they have interests. I think pulling back on the Missile Defense program was a manifestation that there is now a fracture in the position that we held ever since Ronald Reagan started Missile Defense. In the face of opposition from the Soviet Union, and then a lot of people in our own country, and from nervous allies, Ronald Reagan established the doctrine - which truly was a doctrine for American presidents - that we had right in our supreme interest of self-preservation, to defend against incoming missile attacks. And we never took a backwards step with respect to that. That’s why we have today the ability to defend against limited missile attacks against the continental US. And that’s why in the Iraq War, there was a 100% shootdown of the missiles that we felt we needed to take down that came out of Saddam Hussein’s defensive batteries when we launched the attack in March of 2003. We took down a handful of SCUD missiles that came in at the British and American forces in Kuwait when that attack was launched.
“So missile defense has always been non-negotiable. Our right to have it has always been non-negotiable. When Obama essentially retreated in meeting with Poland….you know that retreat was telegraphed when he said early on in his administration that he was “looking at” at that. That’s always a signal that it’s negotiable. And ultimately we backed down from that decision.
“I don’t think that inspired respect for the United States. The problem with the United States with a leftwing policy like that is Obama’s always hoping that its going to be interpreted as being a signal of our compassion, humanity, understanding, and graciousness when in reality, it is interpreted as a sign of weakness.”
Right on target, Mr. Hunter.
9. Duncan Hunter is the only man who is capable of standing up to the communist thugocracy in Red China. His entire career has been spent warning about the dangers of equipping the chicoms with technology, favorable trade deals, and an industrial base, all at our expense. Every one of his predictions about the communist nation has come to pass. Today, they are our largest banker – owning more of our debt than any other nation, and owning the leverage that comes with it. They continue the world’s most aggressive corporate and military spy program, and they continue to pirate whatever US intellectual property they can lay their hands on, all while becoming an industrial giant thanks to US largess. Hunter said in an interview in October 2009: “clearly China is the threat on the horizon”.
His arguments in opposition to treating China as a “partner” are longstanding and exhaustive. But this speech (excerpted) from a 2000 press conference during the run up for the Permanent Most Favored Nation vote (which saw Clinton and the GOP ‘leadership’ working together in favor) is illustrative:
“Good morning. I’m Congressman Duncan Hunter, and we are holding this press conference to talk a little bit about the growing military capability of China that has been pursued largely with American dollars, and to rebut the president’s assertion here several weeks ago that somehow it’s in our security interest to give this favored trading status to China.
“But first, I think it’s important to understand that we are making China economically and militarily strong with American dollars. A few years ago, before we had this enormous trade imbalance in excess of $60 billion in hard American cash in favor of China, China had a tough time buying military equipment around the world. The Russians didn’t like
to deal with them because they didn’t have any cash. Today they are awash with cash. And since 1994, they have begun to pick up critical military elements that will help to make them much more effective against American forces.
“And let me give you a couple of examples.
“One, the Sovremenny-class missile destroyers that they bought from the Russians were designed to do one thing, and that’s to kill American sailors. Specifically, they’re designed to kill American aircraft carriers. They’re armed with Sunburn missiles, and I can tell you, without getting into classified information, that these extremely fast anti-ship missiles are very, very difficult to defend against. The Chinese know that, their technical people know that. And they’ve now purchased, with American dollars that they have pulled into their treasury through our trading – their trading surplus over the United States, they use those American dollars to buy these ships, which cost in excess of $300 million a piece, from the Russians.
“So American trade dollars are being used to arm China. And they’re being used to arm China in a way which is focused specifically against American forces.
“Secondly, they are building the Su-27 aircraft and purchasing Su-27 aircraft, which are a high-performance aircraft. And they now have a deal to co-produce those aircraft. And that is going to greatly enhance Chinese air power.
“And one advantage that the United States has in that region of the world, and one part of our capability to project a superior power in that part of the world, is as a result of our air power.
“China is attempting to marginalize that superiority. And of course that ascending air power strength that they are now receiving, again, purchased with American dollars, primarily from the Russians, also gives them enormous capability against Taiwan.
“I think it’s clear, and most experts agree, that one possibility of a conflict in the future is with China. China is moving now into the superpower shoes that have been left by the Russians. I think most people agree with that.
“The compounded tragedy will be if we have to enter a war in the near future, a conflict either in proxy or a direct war with China, in which American dollars have financed the weapons purchases for both sides.
“At the present, that’s what we’re doing. We are providing the hard dollars that are financing a military, which is ascending in sea power strength, ascending in underwater sea power strength — that is, the Kilo submarines they purchased from the Russians — and also ascending in terms of air power.
“So we are providing the dollars for the Chinese military buildup, which unfortunately is juxtaposed against a declining American military strength. Our military since 1992 has been cut almost in half in terms of force structure. And it’s increasingly difficult for us, as we noticed when we did carrier rotations during the Taiwan crises, to project power in that part of that world. We’re now making it more and more difficult for our own military forces, our own 19- and 20-year-old kids on those aircraft carriers, to offset this growing Chinese strength.
“It doesn’t make sense for the United States and for the U.S. Congress to support a trade policy which arms another country whose officials have made repeated threats, in some cases, to use nuclear weapons on the United States, and whose actions, specifically with reference to Taiwan, appear to be very, very aggressive.
“Now, this is a bad vote. And the few dollars that a few American companies might make in putting together this acceleration of American trade deficits with China will be far offset in American blood.
“Now one other time in this century we badly misjudged Chinese intentions. That was just before the invasion of South Korea in June of 1950. And I would commend to everyone the correspondence between communist China and communist Russia at the time when they evaluated the declining American military strength and their own opportunities in Korea. We misjudged Chinese intentions at that time. And as a result of that, a number of Americans now lay in Arlington Cemetery. We lost 50,000 people in that war.
“Once again, I think we are misjudging Chinese intentions. And we are providing the one thing that the Chinese military system needs to produce a real threat to the United States, and that’s hard American dollars.
“And I would hope that our colleagues would vote with us to deny those hard American dollars manifested in this new trade status that China is seeking in the coming vote.”
Congressional Record | August 10, 1994 | Duncan Hunter
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleagues who talked about what they saw as the benefits of universal coverage and, I think, a very eloquent closing by the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney], who spoke of the necessity of this House doing the people’s business, and the people not being special interests, not being necessarily corporations or industries, but people. And I think what America has heard, Mr. Speaker I want to speak very strongly against the first President Clinton plan that came out that now apparently is dead, not because of Republican opposition, but because we are outnumbered by 100 votes in this House and by quite a few in the other body, but because American people, business people, employees who wanted to keep their jobs, talked to their Democrat Representatives and their Democrat Senators, not to Republicans, who were in the minority and cannot control things, and told them not to pass this plan.
So you have the unique situation where a Democrat President, President Clinton, having total power, total control with his party over both bodies of the U.S. Congress, with the power to write a bill, delivery it to his desk within a few days, and sign it, with the Republican party being basically powerless to stop it, with all those things going for him, the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, was not able to push his first health care plan through.
Now, why did the people stop that plan? Why did Democrat Members of Congress and Members of the Senate stop that plan?
Well, I think it is fairly clear, Mr. Speaker. They sopped the plan because they perceived that it would be bad for them. And it was not just a few industries, because I don’t think the Democrat Party in the House is controlled by a few industries. I think that the Members of the House who are Democrats have the same representative reflection of their constituencies that those on the Republican side have. They do what their constituents ask them to do, and they try to reflect the feelings of their constituents.
Now, why would not Americans, when faced with what has been described as this nirvana of health care, this great new benefit, where nobody is ever left out, everybody has a guarantee for life, from cradle to grave, you are going to be taken care of, and that very appealing personality of this President, who can look at an audience, whether it is a talk show or people in the White House, and you see a little glisten of a tear in his eye, and he talks about giving them security, why would not Americans walk right up and sign up for that program?
It is because Americans are a little bit different from folks in the other parts of the world. We are a country full of people that appreciate when Government gives you some security, it takes away some of your freedom. This debate over health care is a debate between Government control and freedom.
And I hate to hear the word “reform” used when Members first started to describe the President’s own health care plan, because for practical purposes, President Clinton’s first plan was socialism. If it did not socialize the delivery of health care itself, it at least socialized the financing mechanism.
I have never considered socialism to be a reform of any kind. Certainly Cuba has all-inclusive health care coverage. They have got universal coverage. Communist China has universal coverage. All of the nations we have taught over the last 40 years concerning the faults of socialism have universal health coverage. The problem is they don’t have any quality, and they don’t have any quality of life for the people.
You know, John Papageorge, a former commander in the 101st Airborne, described quality of life in America as being a function of the amount of control that you have over your own life. I think that was a very good description of freedom and quality of life in this country.
A lot of people looked at the President’s health care package and decided that they did not like what I would like to call Clinton I, President Clinton’s first health care package. That was a health care package in which everybody had to march down and sign up for the Government health care program. And if you did not sign up for the Government health care program, Government caught you and fined you a double premium if they caught you not signing up for the plan. So nobody had the option to say I want to pay for it myself, or I would rather go somewhere else, or I don’t like this plan. Every American was obligated to go down and sign up with Government and pay Government money.
Everybody had to take a plan that was dished out under a Government system in which large cooperatives or purchasing alliances, Senator Phil Gramm called them collectives, but large purchasing alliances would make big deals with big insurance companies, and theoretically get good rates for packages. And those packages could either be an assigned doctor, where you basically spin a rotary wheel and if the doctor you get happens to be the guy who just immigrated from Bangladesh and has credentials to practice medicine in America, he was your doctor whether you liked him or not.
Or maybe the preferred provider list, where you had a menu of doctors, but you might still not have the right to have the doctor you wanted. Or, in some cases under President Clinton’s first plan, if an insurance company, and only if an insurance company, came forward and had a plan for what is known as fee for service, that is where you can pick any doctor you want, you could be under the government plan and still have a choice of doctors and go to your own doctor.
Well, the American people did not like that deal. They weren’t the French, they weren’t the British, they weren’t the German, they weren’t the Japanese nor the Canadians. They didn’t like that deal and wanted to maintain more freedom.
I don’t think it is unusual or unexpected that of all the nations in the world, the people of the United States like freedom maybe a little better than anybody else. And I think that is kind of a good thing.
So they didn’t sign up for President Clinton’s first plan.
Incidentally, I think another reason they didn’t sign up for President Clinton’s first plan was because they looked at some of these countries which had socialized medicine and although they looked pretty good at first, when you saw a few figures, if you looked through the figures and looked to the quality of medicine that was delivered, you saw some pretty ugly things.
And let’s go around the world and look at some of the things we saw that we could expect President Clinton to drive us toward with this first health care plan.
First, we looked at Canada. Canada was offered to us in the United States Congress as the heaven of health care. This was the place were you had a single payer system where government had finally come to grips and “reformed health care.”
Well, let me tell you what health care reform did to Canada, now that we have looked at it a little closer.
We now have discovered that the largest hospital in Ontario had to close down for 2 weeks last Christmas because they ran out of money.
Then we discovered that there are now 177,000 Canadians waiting in line for operations.
I asked the question when I was in Minnesota recently, why are all these Canadians coming down for operations in Minnesota, Detroit, MI, and other American cities? I was told it was because they don’t have to wait in line if they come to America. They get first-class health care and get it now. So they come to America.
We discovered in some places in Canada women in childbirth are not given epidural anesthetic. You may recall one of the articles that was in a national newspaper about a woman undergoing childbirth who was shivering in pain as her doctor passed her and said I know it hurts and I wish there were something I could do for you, but we just can’t afford it.
So we looked at Canada and we also saw of those 177,000 Canadians waiting for operations, over 25 percent of them surveyed say they are in some sort of pain. So we decided maybe Canada wasn’t the great model for “health care reform” or socialized medicine.
Well, some Members of the House talked about Japan, because Japan dedicates a smaller percentage of their Gross National Product to health care than the United States. We know what they have in Japan. They have a medical system in which doctors see approximately 49 patients a day on the average. Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is whipping people through pretty doggone fast.
My first question was how can you possibly do that? One answer was mass examinations. Well, Americans, especially Americans who have been in uniform, don’t like the idea of mass examinations. They like a little bit of privacy.
You know, when I saw that figure, 49 patients a day per doctor, I thought about the subway system in Tokyo, where they have the professional packers, and these guys look like former sumo wrestlers to me, maybe they are not. They don’t hurt anybody. But when the last Japanese passenger gets on that subway system who can possibly get in, they physically pack the people into the subway, and those big strong packers don’t hurt anybody, but they get the last body in. That is kind of the image you get when you think about 49 patients a day going through each doctor’s office in Tokyo. So we decided maybe we didn’t want to have that kind of socialized medicine.
We looked at Great Britain, where they have socialized medicine. And yet if you are a senior citizen, if you have passed a certain age, and you need a life saving operation, you don’t get it. The reason you don’t get it is because socialized medicine always operates ineffectively and they run out of money. When they run out of money, their philosophy to senior citizens in Great Britain is, you have lived a long and fruitful life and it is time for you to float from the tree, kind of like a leaf in the autumn time. You have had a full life and we will save these life saving operations for younger people.
That sounds fine if you look at it on paper. But when those senior citizens are your grandparents or your parents, you want to be able to have a chance to save their lives. So Americans have looked at Great Britain, and they do not like that socialized medicine system either.
The President has staked quite a bit on making a health care plan go this year. Although it is clear that a majority of the American people say, wait a minute, we do not want you to rush anything through in the immediacy of this election season. We want you to take your time, if you are going to do health care, because health care is a giant contract with the American people. And I do not think the American people like the 1,300-page document that President Clinton sent down the first time.
You know it took almost a year for the American people to be able to look at enough parts of that document and believe me, like a lot of Members of the House, I was pretty surprised when I would meet people at town hall meetings who had read that entire document, many others who knew the outlines, many others who knew the key provisions.
Americans read these things, folks. Ultimately they find out what we vote on. So we better doggone well read the documents ourselves before we vote on them.
So it took about a year for the American people to read President Clinton’s health care plan and read it and understand it so well that there were enough people who objected to the plan that President Clinton, with a 100-seat majority in the House of Representatives being Democrat, could not pass that health care plan.
Republicans did not beat that health care plan. The people of the United States beat that health care plan.
We have got a couple of days until recess. We are told that there is another plan coming up in the House and another plan coming up in the Senate and that we are going to vote on these plans in the next several days. These plans that are comprised of thousands and thousands of pages of regulations, every one of which will have some impact on Americans’ lives.
I think that is wrong. I think the Democrat leadership in both bodies knows that it was the time that the American people took to look at this plan, the first plan that President Clinton offered, that caused it to lose and to be dropped, not by Republicans but by Democrats. And I think if we give the same light of day to this second plan, what I call the Gephardt-Clinton plan, named after distinguished majority leader in the House and the Mitchell-Clinton plan, named after the Democrat leader in the Senate, if the American people get a chance to see President Clinton’s plan 2 and 3, they will be just as offended and just as put off and just as resistive of these two plans as they were of the first.
Let me talk about just a couple of things with respect to this plan.
First, I saw the exchange between President Clinton and the black entrepreneur Herb Kane, the gentleman who is the president and CEO of Godfather Pizzas. He did a businesslike thing, which I guess is sometimes unfair to do to politicians, especially when they are as smooth as our President is. He said, Mr. President, I am paraphrasing, I have looked at your plan. I am going to have to lay off people under this plan. I am going to have to close down franchises.
And the President said, essentially, to him, and I am paraphrasing the President, I do not know why you just cannot raise the price of your pizzas.
And I noticed on Mr. Kane’s face, after the President said that, what I consider to be a pretty naive statement to a businessman who understands you cannot just raise the price of your goods to accommodate added costs, I saw kind of a look of surprise. And later on he told a number of us in the House, he said, if I could get more money for my pizzas, I would be getting it. But the point is, this plan is going to kill jobs. It is going to force me to close down some franchises that are marginal.
And he said another thing that I thought was interesting and goes to the heart of this whole debate. Because this whole debate is developed on the Democrat idea that we are going to make employers, small businesses and larger businesses, pay for all the health care for their employees.
Mr. Kane, once again I am paraphrasing him but I thought this was important, he was asked why he did not think that he owed giving health care or a health care program to every one of his employees. He said, because my first duty to my employees it to give them a job. And sometimes you cannot do both.
That is the point with Clinton 2, with the second Clinton package which is being put together on the Senate side by Senator Mitchell and Clinton 3, the third Clinton package which is being put together by Mr. Gephardt and the Democrat leadership behind closed doors on the House side, these plans are going to kill jobs.
I come from a State in which we have done what we thought were wonderful things for workers. The only thing we forgot to include was a job. We have got a workmen’s compensation program in California that allows people to sue for stress and we have had a ton of fraudulent claims for stress. That has not helped workers. It has hurt the good workers because the fraudulent workers have gone out and collected their dollars, and the good workers have kept on working and the good businesses have moved out of California and moved to other States. And there is a continuing exodus.
So with the legislature of California attempting to be so kind to the workers, they forgot one thing. Blue collar workers cannot hire each other. White collar workers cannot hire each other. You have to have a businessman or a businesswomen, a business owner to hire you. And you cannot make the environment so unfriendly to them or so unprofitable or so burdensome that they go out of business,because if they go out of business, you are out of a job.
Well, the Clinton 2 and Clinton 3 health care plans put a lot of folks out of jobs.
Let me tell you how many they put out of jobs. This is an estimate that is taken off the CONSAD study, “Employment Impact of Ways and Means plans and Approximate Impact under the Gephardt Plan.” The plan that the Democrat leadership is putting together in the House of Representatives is going to destroy almost a million jobs and it is doing to affect many times a million jobs. What do I mean by saying affect?
I mean this: If you have a business that is selling a particular product and they are only making a $20,000-a-year profit on this small business and they discover that the mandated health care plan under President Clinton 2 or 3 or 1 is going to cost them an additional $30,000, then they close up. Let us say they are still making slight profit and they intended to put that profit into giving their employees raises so they could increase productivity. Now they have to forgo the raises because there is no money there to do it with.
When you take money out of the payroll, especially when so many American businesses are having trouble meeting that Friday payroll, you either detract from the amount of money you are paying the present employees or you have to lay off employees. That is what this health care bill is all about. It kills jobs and it degrades jobs.
Let me tell the American people what the CONSAD study says. I want to read the States and I am going to read the numbers of jobs that are lost and the number of jobs that are downgraded because of President Clinton’s second plan, that is Clinton-Gephardt.
Alabama, they lose 13,000 jobs; 716,000 jobs affected.
Alaska, Alaska loses 1,200 jobs; 74,000 jobs are affected.
Arizona loses 11,000 jobs; 641,000 jobs are affected.
Arkansas loses 7,000 jobs; 398,000 jobs are affected in Arkansas.
California, my State, loses 108,000 jobs. Over half the jobs that we lost with the aerospace flight are going to be lost with the Clinton health care plan. Over 5 million jobs will be affected.
Colorado, 11,000 jobs are lost; 638,000 jobs are affected.
Connecticut, 15,000 jobs are lost under the Clinton health care plan; 796,000 jobs are affected.
Delaware, 2,800 jobs are lost under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan; 154,000 jobs are affected.
District of Columbia, 4,900 jobs are lost. That is like a large company leaving the District of Columbia and taking all of its jobs with them, except in this case, the jobs do not go anywhere, they are just destroyed. But under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan, 4,900 jobs are lost in the District of Columbia; 240,000 jobs are downgraded.
Florida, 41,000 jobs are lost, 2.3 million jobs are downgraded;
Georgia, 23,000 jobs are lost, 1,200,000 jobs are downgraded under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan.
Idaho, 2,000 jobs are lost, 153,000 jobs affected; Illinois, 47,000 jobs are lost, 2,478,000 jobs are affected, Indiana, 22,000 jobs are lost, 1,168,000 jobs are affected; Iowa, 9,000 jobs are lost, 530,000 jobs are affected.
Kansas, 8,000 jobs are lost, 469,000 jobs are affected or downgraded under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan; Kentucky, 11,000 jobs are lost, 610,000 jobs are downgraded; Louisiana, 11,000 jobs are lost, 645,000 jobs are downgraded.
Maine, 4,000 jobs are lost, 227,000 jobs are downgraded under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan; Maryland, 16,000 jobs are lost, 953,000 jobs are downgraded; Massachusetts, 29,000 jobs are lost, 1.4 million jobs are downgraded; Michigan, 36,000 jobs are lost, 1.8 million jobs are downgraded.
Minnesota, 18,000 jobs are lost, 931,000 jobs are downgraded; Mississippi, 7,000 jobs are lost, 375,000 are downgraded; Missouri, 20,000 jobs are lost in Missouri under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan, and over 1 million jobs are downgraded; Montana, 1,700 jobs are lost in the Big Sky country, 105,000 jobs are downgraded.
Nebraska, 5,000 jobs are lost, 313,000 jobs are downgraded; Nevada, 6,400 jobs are lost, 320,000 jobs are downgraded; New Hampshire, 4,000 jobs lost, 223,000 jobs downgraded, New Jersey, 29,000 jobs lost under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan, 1.6 million jobs downgraded in New Jersey.
New Mexico, 3,000 jobs lost, 205,000 jobs downgraded; New York, 76,000 jobs lost in New York under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan, 3.9 million jobs downgraded; North Carolina, 28,000 jobs lost, 1.4 million jobs are downgraded; North Dakota, 1,600 jobs lost, 96,000 jobs downgraded.
Ohio, 44,000 jobs lost, 2.26 million jobs downgraded; Oklahoma, 8,000 jobs lost, 466,000 jobs are downgraded under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan; Oregon, 8,000 jobs are lost, 499,000 jobs downgraded.
Pennsylvania, here is a whopper, 47,000 jobs are lost in Pennsylvania under Clinton-Gephardt, 2,453,000 jobs are downgraded; Rhode Island, 3,800 jobs lost, 202,000 jobs downgraded; South Carolina, 12,000 jobs lost, 681,000 downgraded; South Dakota, 1,700 jobs lost, 103,000 jobs downgraded under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan.
Tennessee, 19,000 jobs lost, 987,000 jobs downgraded; Texas, 55,000 jobs lost, 3 million jobs are downgraded. No wonder Texans, Democrat and Republican, have not been happy about this brand of socialized medicine.
Utah, 5,000 jobs lost, 309,000 jobs downgraded; Vermont, 1,800 jobs lost, 102,000 jobs downgraded; Virginia, 21,000 jobs lost, 1.2 million jobs downgraded.
Washington, 16,000 jobs lost, 936,000 jobs downgraded; West Virginia, 4,000 jobs lost, 238,000 jobs downgraded; Wisconsin, 19,000 jobs lost, 1,100,000 jobs are downgraded under the Clinton-Gephardt health care plan. We end up with Wyoming, 930 jobs lost, 60,000 jobs downgraded.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this administration and a few Members on the Democrat side are willing to sacrifice American jobs for Government control of health care.
Mr. Speaker, I did not give the figures of jobs that are going to be lost under so-called Clinton-Mitchell, but I would say that it is not going to be much less than the jobs that are lost under Clinton-Gephardt, which are close to 1 million jobs, and there are a couple of other things about the Mitchell plan, the Clinton-Mitchell plan, that I think are important to talk to the American people about.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the author of the plan, Senator Mitchell, July 21, 1994. He said these words: “Our plans will be less bureaucratic,” he said this, “more voluntary, and will be phased in over a longer period of time.”
Let me just read to you a few of the 50 new Government agencies that we are going to establish if we pass the Clinton-Mitchell health care plan. Ready to go? Fifty new bureaucracies.
He said this is going to be less bureaucratic and more voluntary. Let me tell you about a few of the non-voluntary bureaucracies which are going to be employing hundreds of thousands of new Federal workers.
We are going to have a National Health Benefits Board. That is section 1211. We are going to have the Health Insurance Purchasing Cooperatives set up by States or local governments. That is section 1321.
There will be the Health Insurance Purchasing Cooperative set up by the Federal Office of Personnel Management, section 1341. We are going to have a National Guaranty Fund for Multi-State Self-Insured Plans.
We are going to have an assistant secretary for the Office of Rural Health Policy. We are going to have a Federal Accreditation, Certification and Enforcement Program. That is going to be called ACE.
We are going to have a State Accreditation, Certification, and Enforcement Program under section 1501. We are going to have a Health Plan Service That is under section 1502.
We are going to have State Risk Adjustment Organizations. That is section 1504. We are going to have an Advisory Committee for Risk Adjustment Programs, section 1504.
We are going to have State Guaranty Funds. That is section 1505. We are going to have State Public Access Sites for Medically Underserved Areas, 1508. We are going to have the Prescription Drug Payment Review Commission, that is section 2004.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say with respect to drugs and the cost of medicines in America, the reason you don’t want to have socialized medicine in America is this: An interesting fact that a lot of Americans discovered after the First Lady and the President went on their binge against the companies that develop medicines and cures, we discovered–and this was a surprise to me, and I think to a lot of our constituents across the country, but it is a fact–the United States of America develops more cures for diseases than all the rest of the nations of the world combined.
Isn’t that incredible? That means you take Great Britain, France, Germany, Canada, all the rest of these civilized nations, and Third World nations, and you add them all up, and the good old United States of America, that has what the Democrat leadership calls this backward system, produces more cures that save the lives of your family and families around the world that all the rest of these so-called progressive nations, remember, Cuba is in that group, too, combined.
Why do we produce more cures than all the rest of the nations combined? I would submit it is not because Japan does not have great universities, and probably some pretty smart people; it is not because France and Great Britain do not have good universities. It is because none of them have the free enterprise system that we have.
Mr. Speaker, I have a gentleman in San Diego, a friend of mine named Bill Otterson, who suffers from a fairly rare disease. He and some other folks told me about a drug called Intron-A. Intron-A tells you why you do not want to pull the free enterprise system out of the development of medicine.
Intron-A costs $100 million to develop and when they first put it together, when they first took a chance on it and decided to burn up $100 million and bet that it would be a winner, they knew that there was only a small group of Americans initially who would be able to access or use that drug, and that was this very small pool of people who have what is known as hairy cell leukemia, a very unique type of leukemia. There are only about 1,000 folks in the United States who have that brand of leukemia. Yet a group of private investors put $100 million forward to develop this drug called Intron-A. They knew that initially it would take care of folks that had hairy cell leukemia. Of course those folks were pretty happy it was being developed. But they thought it also might, if it succeeded and if their gamble paid off, be able to address 17 or 18 other types of diseases. They were right.
Today Intron-A is used to treat about 17 or 18 major diseases. It is a big success. It brings in about $500 million a year to the United States from countries all over the world that use it. It was developed because we have a free enterprise system. All those people,including people like Bill Otterson who are themselves afflicted with these medical diseases that are treated by these miracle drugs say, “Please don’t socialize medicine” because if Mrs. Clinton, respectfully, had been around to tell the Intron-A people, “If you develop Intron-A and put $100 million of your own money into it, I am only going to let you charge $1 a pill when you develop it,” would it ever have been developed? Would the people who have hairy cell leukemia ever have had a chance to be cured or helped? Would Bill Otterson and the other hundreds of thousands who now use Intron-A to save their lives have a chance to have it? Absolutely not.
Mr. Speaker, the consensus of the medical community, including experts from places likes Johns Hopkins and other great medical centers is, if we socialize medicine and the creation of new medical cures, what the companies will do is simply this: They will go to a system in which they do not take any medical risks, because nobody is going to go out and put $50 million into a drug that you can only get $1 a pill for. So what they will do is they will take our present inventory of drugs and they will incrementally increase the capability of those drugs. They will try to research them a little bit and make them a little bit better, but they will never go out there and try to whip that new disease that nobody has beaten so far. They will not find a cure for cancer. They will not find any of the wonderful cures that America has found under freedom. it is kind of interesting, is it not?
A person does not have to be a wealthy person to understand how very, very important it is to have a free enterprise system in which people go out and take a risk and having taken a risk, they develop a system that saves lives by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, by the millions.
Mr. Speaker, I see my friend, the gentleman from Maryland has come to the floor and I would be happy to yield to him if he wants me to yield.]]>
Barack Hussein Obama is not a stupid man. Regardless of how and why he was accepted to Columbia and Harvard Law School, he apparently was intelligent enough to achieve passing grades. (I say apparently, because no one has actually seen his college transcripts). It is also true that he is not a slothful man. Through his well-rehearsed, savvy, and populist political rhetoric and demeanor, he has been able to inspire left leaning Americans to follow and support him with great enthusiasm. The type of enthusiasm that has been decidedly missing from conservative American circles for the past 20 years.
But if history’s scars have taught us anything about national leaders and politicians, it is that intelligence and cunning do not necessarily equate to wisdom. And Barack Hussein Obama has yet to demonstrate that he possesses even the vaguest ability to produce wise and reasoned judgments.
You are not wise if you claim to be a constitutional law professor, yet do not comprehend the basics of the Constitution. Where, pray tell, in the US Constitution does it allow for the federal government to seize private companies, such as GM and Chrysler, and then have the president’s underlings decide which auto dealerships are allowed to stay in business? Where does the Constitution permit the Feds to create a government run health insurance entity -that will surely undercut private providers - in order to “keep them honest and help keep prices down”? Toss in a career-long hostility to the Second Amendment, and it becomes obvious that Obama subscribes to the nebulous “living breathing document” school of constitutional study.
You are not wise if you neither understand nor appreciate America’s standing in the world, as a beacon of freedom and righteousness; and the enemy of evil. In his travels, Obama has never once failed to apologize for America to people who are either envious or disdainful of our nation. He apologized in Turkey for America’s “strained relations” with that country and with islam in general. He apologized in Cairo for the US flat lining Saddam and establishing an Iraqi democracy in the Middle East. He apologized during his campaign in Berlin for “our actions around the world that haven’t lived up to our best intentions”. He apologized at the recent G8 summit in Italy for America causing fictitious ‘global warming’. And perhaps most egregiously – standing the Monroe Doctrine on its ear, he apologized that the United States has “not always stood as it should” in Latin America, while attempting to justify his jaw-dropping support for reinstating a Hugo Chavez sidekick back into the Honduran presidency.
You are not wise if you do not understand the nature of our enemies and rivals, or the history of nation-states. Promoting unilateral nuclear disarmament that will sacrifice our arsenal for leftist, politically correct “peace in our time” may put a smile on Vladimir Putin’s face, but it is dismantling the leverage that generations of patriotic cold warriors constructed. De-funding missile defenses and advanced space-based weaponry may be the cause of Champagne celebrations in Beijing, Pyongyang, and San Francisco, but it will leave our military in a position of inferiority for the first time in decades. And coddling terrorists by handing them US Constitutional rights on the battlefield may please the ACLU and Bill Ayers, but it a policy of national suicide.
So how do conservatives fight this onslaught of misguided, unwise, and dangerous policies?
1. Conservatives must reject ‘political correctness’! It was the GOP’s and John McCain’s politically correct instincts that prevented them from exposing Obama’s radicalism during the campaign. The best they could cough up was that Obama’s policies seemed “socialistic”. Balderdash. Obama’s policies then and now are rank marxist constructs. Obama has never had anyone other than far left radicals for mentors. Even when the MSM handed the McCain camp the anti-American, racist Jeremiah Wright on a silver platter, they refused it. McCain gave some sorry excuse about not wanting to impugn a man’s religion. What does hate for Israel and America and gross distortions of US history have to do with a man’s religion? Conservatives must be willing to point out that everything Obama stands for goes directly against the grain of our Constitution, our history, capitalism, and common sense. When Obama nominates a racist “wise Latina” for the Supreme Court, conservatives have the obligation to point out that racism and defeat her, instead of excusing it. The radical Latino groups that threaten conservatives by vowing to work against them have no intention of EVER supporting a conservative. John McCain’s Spanish language Amnesty ads, which aired throughout the SW during the campaign, earned him absolutely nothing but scorn from Latinos, as evidenced by his precipitous drop of support in comparison to George Bush. And keep in mind that in 2000 and 2004 George Bush was dead set against “amnesty”. Instead of dismissing out of hand the research that conservative bloggers uncover - because afterall they’re just bloggers - patriotic politicians need to assign staff to monitor these efforts and chase hard after the facts (while dismissing the chaff). If they had done so in 2008, Barack Obama would still be a harmless back bencher in the US Senate.
2. Conservatives must fight relentlessly to block Obama’s marxist agenda. The most effective way to resonate with the American people is to fiercely defend the constitution while advocating American Exceptionalism, local control, tradition, and rejection of the nanny state. We must consistently draw attention to the deficiencies of the existing federal bureaucratic cluster-f*ck and the horror stories it produces. If the democrats can trot out “victims” of the – you name it – insurance industry, second hand smoke, the mining industry, big pharmaceuticals, etc, then surely conservatives can find scads of genuine victims of the IRS, the EPA, OSHA, Medicare, and judicial activism. No compromises on the socialist fantasy called ‘Cap and Trade’. No compromises on a health bill that expands the reach of the federal government in any way, shape or form. Conservatives must work tirelessly to expose and deflect Obama’s myriad plans to neuter our military - with everything from repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, to slashing our Missile Defenses, to canceling funding for our best fighter jet, to unilateral nuclear disarmament. If Obama “wins” these legislative battles, the consequences must rest solely on the shoulders of the president and his cohorts Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Giving these plans the legitimacy of “bi-partisan” cover is a recipe for conservatives to remain in the wilderness.
3. Conservatives must offer Conservative solutions. There is no lack of great ideas to address the pressing issues of the day. The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Club for Growth, and dare I say the Falcon Party all have some excellent ideas to move America forward towards liberty, security and prosperity. And there is no lack of data to support jettisoning the FALSE pressing issues such as ‘global warming’, gays in the military, and amnesty for illegal aliens. Instead of a 2nd or 3rd stimulus plan that wastes trillions, advocate slashing capital gains and corporate tax rates to be the most business friendly nation on earth. Instead of regulating coal out of existence for the ruse of saving the planet, advocate fast tracking nuclear power and clean coal plant permits, with donations of federal lands to build them on. Instead of letting Obama pick the winners and losers of the emerging “green” technologies, advocate tax incentives to further their development and demonstration. Instead of surrendering to the siren song of socialized, federally run healthcare, advocate the elimination of regulations that force insurance providers to include things like abortion and mental health services for those who have no desire to have this crap in their policies. Instead of dangling federal dollars over the heads of state/city run schools to have them standardize per the wishes of federal bureaucrats, advocate the elimination of the Department of Education altogether; and refund all the billions of dollars to the states that are currently being collected, skimmed, and then returned with sticky strings attached. Instead of drastically cutting dollars out of the defense budget to pay other government expenses, advocate the elimination of 25% of the federal government departments and personnel. Americans will be shocked at the amount of useless, expensive, anti-constitutional nonsense that exists in the federal leviathan, if conservatives take the time to fully illustrate it.
With the confidence our founders had in capitalism, individual liberty, private property, and constitutionally limited government, conservatives must move forward to challenge and destroy the entire premise of government hyper-activism that has led us to where we are today. And with Obama now in the oval office, this activism, better known as marxism, threatens to take America from a free enterprise superpower to a sickly vassal state. America is worth saving – and only a return to conservative governance can spare her from this decline.
Wisdom is what our founding fathers had. And they created a constitutional republic. Cunning is what Saul Alinsky had, and what David Axelrod, Hillary Clinton, Bill Ayers and Barack Obama have. And their efforts to tear down this republic will fail when conservatives stand proudly on the shoulders of America’s giants and reclaim our heritage.]]>
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. Bush ALONE for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. (and all should be convicted of dereliction of duty as defined by their oath of office, and in some cases outright treason.)
I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it’s because they want them in IRAQ.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess. The election is not that far away!
It is time to go to work.]]>
It has been interesting and amusing to read the numerous ‘post mortems’ from conservative and liberal pundits alike. Yet not one of the post mortems has identified the real reason McCain got clobbered. It was not because of Sarah Palin, as many liberals claimed. Palin was the only thing that kept McCain in the game. It was not because middle America suddenly decided they like leftist solutions as opposed to conservative solutions. McCain offered few such solutions himself.
The reason Obama prevailed was because the GOP allowed a false narrative about Obama to stand – a narrative painting BHO as a moderate, reasonable, and competent legislator.
First things First
John McCain, for all his problems – deep distrust amongst conservatives, an unpopular Bush occupying the Whitehouse, an ill timed “fundamentals of the economy are strong” gaffe, and a less than stellar campaign team – could have put himself in a strong position to win with a single, courageous act: Opposing the socialist “bailout”. What would have been proof of a genuine free market Maverick, willing to stand and fight big spending socialism, instead turned into a Monty Python skit. McCain first ran with his instincts and stated he did not like the idea of a taxpayer bailout, then swiftly reversed himself – deciding it was his golden opportunity to “lead”. He declared a phony “suspension” of his campaign and flew back to Washington to loudly promote this boondoggle. By doing so, not only did he look contrived and silly, McCain ended up on the exact same side of the issue as Nancy Pelosi, George Bush, Harry Reid, the GOP leadership and Barack Obama. And by being on the same side as Obama, his subsequent claims of prudent fiscal stewardship versus Obama’s ‘tax and spend’ liberalism rang exceedingly hollow.
This episode cost McCain dearly. After chipping away at Obama’s lead all summer, after the negative publicity surrounding Obama and Jeremiah Wright, and then introducing Sarah Palin to America during the Republican National Convention, the wind was at McCain’s back. Palin hit a home run in her speech, and McCain appeared quite clever for selecting her. The conservative base was starting to mobilize.
Then President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson announced a financial ‘crisis’ to the world; and McCain (and the GOP leaders) crumpled like a cheap suit. Granted, there were other footprints on his John Thomas, such as the Spanish language ads touting his amnesty plan, his foolish call for the feds to usurp individual mortgages, and his cringe producing knocks against “big oil”; all which helped erode conservative enthusiasm. But the “bailout” debacle was the big one. McCain not only missed the opportunity to side with the people (70% strongly opposed), but he tied himself closer to Bush at a time when Bush’s approval rating slumped from bad to worse. Within 10 days, the polls dramatically shifted from McCain up from 2 to 8 points, to an Obama lead, which was never relinquished.
That was John McCain’s main contribution to his loss (other than being John McCain), but the entire GOP, including the RNC, McCain’s advisors, the NRCC, the NRSC, and other various Republican organs failed as well. They not only failed to win, but more importantly, they failed to prevent a dyed in the wool, radical Marxist from ascending to the presidency. How? By not telling America that Barack Hussein Obama IS a dyed in the wool, radical Marxist!!! It is a nearly unforgivable crime to have failed to “put country first” and do everything in their power to keep this slippery and dangerous subversive from winning.
Had they exposed Barack Obama for who he really is, instead of bowing to the winds of political correctness and decorum, Obama and his democrat allies would have been beaten like ugly, red-headed stepchildren. Instead, they allowed Obama to dictate the narrative of his own life, knowing full well that the MSM was going to support him 100%. The ads that the GOP did run mentioning Bill Ayers were sporadic, and mostly ineffectual, because they never followed up on why it mattered. They never explained to the public that Bill Ayers is STILL a radical Marxist in every sense of the word, and was such when Obama ‘palled’ around with him. They never explained that Obama and Ayers pushed anti-American, radical education “reform” together. They never wove it into the larger story line of Obama’s entire life – a life full of radical associations, and his own Marxist activities. And they failed to clearly demonstrate how that radicalism is setting Obama’s agenda this very day. It was an EPIC FAILURE on the part of the GOP!
The Real Story
Talk Radio has a massive audience, but it is a self selecting audience. Apolitical and swing voters generally do not tune in, and most liberals don’t either. The only way for Obama’s real narrative to have reached the masses who don’t hang onto Rush’s every word, and who don’t spend their time reading Red State and Free Republic, was for the GOP hierarchy (including McCain) to raise hell about it. It was the only way the MSM was going to mention it. Instead we witnessed the spectacle of the RNC and McCain campaign scolding those in the Republican Party who tried to run such ads. And when a very brave congressman, Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), appeared on Chris Matthews’ program and declared her suspicion that Obama may hold anti-American views, the NRCC pulled her funding and she was treated like a pariah in the party. Not one GOP leader rushed to her defense. It was a prime opportunity for Republicans to tell the world WHY Obama’s views should be considered un-American. Instead, they cut and ran, just like they did from every Obama controversy.
No matter how many uppercuts talkers such as Mark Levin, Rush, Hugh Hewitt, and Savage delivered to Obama’s chin, and no matter how much dirt the rightwing blogosphere uncovered, the powers that be in the Republican Party refused to join the fray, leaving the MSM to counter and gloss over anything negative about Obama that seeped into the national dialogue.
The Republicans have lost their nerve. Worse, they have lost their revulsion to socialism and Marxism and have devolved into politically correct, overfed capons. No other explanation suffices to illustrate their frightened, AWOL status on the following subjects:
The above close associations are only a partial list, for brevity’s sake. But there are many others, including radical islamist and former black panther Khalid al-Mansour, a man identified by civil rights leader (and Obama supporter) Percy Sutton as ‘sponsoring’ Obama during his Harvard days. Obama denies knowing him, yet al-Mansour and Sutton told the media the opposite. Also, “close friend” Rashid al Khalidi, Black Liberation soulmate and anti-semite Louis Farrakhan, his self described “spiritual advisers” such as the Marxist priest Father Pfleger and Reverend James “house niggers” Meeks, official campaign artist and Marxist propagandist Shepard Fairey, and Communist Party USA board member Tim Wheeler, who was honored by Obama with his own blog on the official Obama/Biden campaign website; all remained virtual unknowns. It goes on and on.
So what prevented the GOP and the McCain campaign from exploiting the history of Barack Obama and telling the true story about his politics and worldview? Shouldn’t the urge to prevent such a radical from gaining the presidency of this blessed nation have outweighed any fear of being labeled racists and fear mongers by Obama’s cheering section in the MSM? Only a fool or a leftist could have been comforted by Obama’s attempts to sound notes of moderation during the general election.
There was a reason that Obama received endorsements from North Korea’s official news outlet, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, the Communist Party in the US (CPUSA), France’s Socialist Party, The New Black Panther Party, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the radical Palestinian party Hamas, British communist MP George Galloway, Libyan dictator Momar Kaddafi, Calyspo Louie’s Nation of Islam, Nicaraguan communist Daniel Ortega, and virtually every radical, leftist, socialist and Marxist organization in existence.
Yet the GOP leaders watched in silence as conservatives in the blogosphere and talk radio documented these endorsements and associations and tied them to his voting record and his current policies. Policies that include radical gun control, giving out welfare and calling it tax cuts, pushing for surrender to the islamists in Iraq, lifting all restrictions on abortion, pushing an education policy right out of Bill Ayers’ handbook, using Marxist Saul Alinsky’s tactics for polluting the election process, threatening US sovereignty with global UN tax proposals and unfettered illegal immigration, his call for a powerful “Civilian National Defense Force”, his promises to gut missile defenses and many other high tech military systems, a radical energy agenda aimed at curbing fictitious “global warming”, and his proposal for nationalizing health care.
Fellow conservatives, next time you find yourself enraged about a far reaching, socialist Obama policy which erodes and undermines our military capabilities, our free market economy, our sovereignty, or our Christian heritage, be sure to thank the leaders in the Republican Party. When it was time to stand and fight with us and expose the Marxist candidate to the American people, they chose the poisonous ‘safety’ of political correctness instead; to their eternal shame and to our nation’s catastrophic detriment.]]>
Today, we invite you to join us on a journey to form a political alliance that will reshape our history and steer us back to the wisdom of our founding principles. If your blood runs a patriotic red, white & blue; if you wish to see the Federal Government function within its constitutional limitations; if you are tired of politically correct platitudes and policies that defy common sense; and if you reject the creeping socialism that both major political parties have embraced, please take a few minutes to learn about the FALCON Party and our agenda for America’s future.
We are not asking for money or oaths of allegiance. We are not even requiring you to leave the party to which you currently belong. But we are asking you to join us in this fight for America’s soul. We are seeking friends, supporters and allies who share the values of our heritage, values that were reflected and imbedded into our national character by a group of inspired patriots at our country’s founding.
For those who want to be organizers on the state or local level, we can certainly use your talents. For those who are, or wish to be, modern day pamphleteers in support of our conservative, pro-America agenda, we will give you an additional platform (or at least a link to your blog). For those that just want to stop by our website (www.falconparty.com) and offer moral support at this time, we welcome the encouragement. Any level of effort in between is also appreciated. Our goals are your goals. They are ambitious, but realistic. We intend to nominate candidates for national office by the 2012 presidential election year cycle. We intend to become a preeminent voice of conservatism in the years to come. We are not just a political party, but also a think tank, an advocate for American Exceptionalism, and a place to gather for those interested in US history, the foundations of our Republic, and our place in the world today.
We are not ‘neo-conservatives’, ‘paleo-conservatives’, or ‘third way’ conservatives; we are simply conservatives - American patriots who believe in fighting our enemies both foreign and domestic, slashing the unseemly bureaucracy that usurps our God given freedoms, and restoring the constitutionally proscribed powers between the federal government, the States and the people.
Why FALCON, you may ask? Our party was founded by rock ribbed, Reaganite conservatives who are more than disenchanted with the direction of the Republican Party. We are not intending to sabotage the genuine conservative members of the GOP. We will continue to support them with our voices and our alliance. By being an open party ourselves, we anticipate many GOPers will sign up for FALCON, yet retain their Republican membership for the time being (we anticipate the same for Libertarians and Constitution Party members).
Our name, FALCON is an acronym, and represents Fealty to America, Liberty, Conservatism, Optimism, and Nobility.
There are numerous issues that must be urgently addressed to keep the United States from decaying into a ‘formerly great country’. America cannot afford to lose its economic or military superpower status, especially as we see unfriendly nations and alliances rising to challenge us in every facet of human endeavor.
For decades now, the socialists in our country, the Democrats, have worked to limit individual freedom - the catalyst for our greatness, grow the federal government’s reach and scope well beyond its constitutional limits, and coddle our enemies – from the USSR, to Cuba, to the Sandinistas to this latest wave of Islamic jihadists. While the GOP is generally more sensible and conservative than the Democrats, they have resigned themselves to co-opting much of the Democratic Party platform. We intend to stop the nonsense, and re-establish conservative principles and governance across the board. Some issues requiring immediate attention include:
While the GOP leadership blindly encourages the hyper-industrialization of China at the expense of our national security and industrial base with ignorant tax and trade policy, we propose to treat China as they treat us – as adversaries. China has aligned itself with every unsavory regime across the globe, has peddled weapons to most, and has extremely aggressive military and corporate espionage programs. It is time to call out their malfeasance and well past time to stop relying on this communist country for Treasury bill purchases to keep our system afloat. It is beyond dangerous, and must end.
The good news is that the Bush Tax cuts (famously opposed by one John McCain) have spurred economic growth and record receipts into the federal Treasury. The bad news is that spending on foolish and unconstitutional programs continues to lead us towards insolvency. Instead of fundamentally reforming Medicare, the GOP led the charge to add hundreds of billions more in outlays for prescription drugs. Instead of gutting the Department of Education, the GOP worked hand in glove with the Democrats to grow this ineffectual monstrosity. Instead of demanding responsibility from the CIA and the FBI and tearing down the walls of communication to improve our intelligence gathering, they added another onerous layer of bureaucracy known as the Department of Homeland Security, which has given us ‘random’ airport screenings of little old ladies. FALCON estimates that 40% to 60% of what the federal government currently does can and should be eliminated.
We have heard both parties talk about ‘tax reform’ for decades. Yet nothing ever gets accomplished. The GOP lowers marginal rates one year, then the Democrats (or Republicans) raise them the next. All the while, the tax code grows more unwieldy. There are solid, viable proposals for both a flat income tax and a national sales tax. While significantly different, each offers serious reform and simplification and a move away from penalizing the most productive sectors of the economy. It is time to send the vast majority of IRS employees and tax consultants into a productive line of work.
The GOP is in the process of nominating a candidate, John McCain, whose policy on so called ‘climate change’ is nearly indistinguishable from those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And by all indications, a growing segment of GOP leadership - from President Bush to Newt Gingrich to the RNC - are jumping on this bandwagon….all for the biggest hoax in history. ANWR and the US coastal waters should be humming with the sound of oil rigs, and refineries and power plants should be sprouting like mushrooms across the fruited plains. Instead, we get hot air from Washington and energy bills that ban the incandescent light bulb.
The key to survival as a nation is to not hamstring ourselves with this festering push for ‘globalism’ in the name of altruistic endeavors. We must reject the Law of the Sea Treaty that gives the United Nations control of the world’s oceans. We must secure our borders to allow only those we invite to enter this country and swiftly remove all who have illegally gained entry. We must reject a WTO that has the power (recently demonstrated) to dictate US corporate tax policy. The states and the people created our federal government with limited authority. There is no room whatsoever for supranational entities having any authority over US citizens or our elected representatives, period.
We fully support the eradication of Islamic terrorists and terror harboring regimes that threaten the United States. But we need a military that can easily win the skirmishes, such as the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while simultaneously retaining the power to crush the threat of hostile nation states, including a budding China-Russia alliance. The budget for defense spending has spiraled downward since the Reagan years; from over 6% of GDP in 1986 to only 3% by the year 1999. For fiscal year 2009, the highest estimate - including the costs for the Iraq and Afghan theatres - is 4.7%. For comparison, during the height of the Vietnam War, defense spending was 9.4%. Defending our nation is one of a handful of constitutionally enumerated responsibilities for the federal government, and FALCON will fight for an immediate return to Reagan era defense budgets.
These are just a few of the issues that confront us all as citizens of this great republic. Conservatives must come together now and turn this ship around. Despite the seriousness of the task before us, we must do so with good humor and cheer, not pessimism and foreboding, because it is truly an honor and privilege to work for the renewal of our nation; the greatest God has ever placed on this earth. It is our turn to do the heavy lifting that so many generations of Americans did before us, and hand off to our posterity what Washington, Madison, Jefferson and Franklin handed to theirs. We intend to ally ourselves with other great conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Eagle Forum, the Center for Security Policy, and many others to affect this change. Learn more at our website and contact us to get involved in the next phase of the Reagan Revolution. The country cannot afford to wait
God Bless the good old USA.
Alexander J. Madison.