Newt Gingrich

Continuing with our series on Republican presidential candidates, it is Gingrich's turn to come under the microscope. If anyone is more qualified for the job of actually running the country, he has not been found yet. Holding a doctorate in European History from Tulane, he has been inside the beltway since 1978. Most famously, he authored the "Contract with America" in 1994, which put in place the first Republican majority in Congress since the Eisenhower administration. But how does he deal with our top issues?

#1: The Economy: Gingrich, who has spent most of his professional life in Washington, to great success, would seem an obvious candidate for providing real, tangible ideas for fixing the U.S. economy. However, when given the opportunity, he resorts to high-sounding vagaries that remind us of the Obama campaign in '08. He does provide us with a good view of his tax policy, though. He wants to eliminate both the capital gains and death taxes, while lowering the corporate income tax to 12.5%, while allowing 100% expensing of new equipment. In addition, he would like to "move towards" a flat tax.

While his tax policy makes good, conservative, sense, the other areas of his economic plans beg for specifics. For example, he wants to:

"Balance the budget by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches." 

Gee whiz, Newt, no one has ever thought of that. Bold leadership at its finest.

#2: Immigration: Gingrich has much to say on this issue, even going so far as to provide us with a ten step solution to solving our immigration problems. Most of these ideas are very good, and should prove beneficial, however, there is a level of arbitrariness given to some of these steps. For example, his sixth step states that the Department of Justice will start a 'citizen's review' to determine which illegals we should allow to stay and which should be deported. There are two problems with this: (1) He provides no system or policy that would determine who the illegals are. Does he recommend using his citizen's review on all 300 million residents of the US? (2) He provides no specific criteria to determine which illegals should stay. These issues, coupled with his ideal of solving the immigration problem at the personal level makes for a system that is ripe for corruption.

#3: National Security: His policies in this area promote a more unified approach to the War on Terror than has been put into action since 9/11. Most importantly, he has the guts to stand against the tide of political correctness that has impeded our security efforts. Just as Reagan realized that we must deal with Communism head on, Gingrich adopts this approach to radical Islam. For that we can praise him. However, America has many enemies, not the least of which is a large country between Russia and India. He basically ignores China's growing military capabilities, and therefore provides no solutions to confront them. If he truly believes that we should "know who we are as a country", perhaps he should spend more time explaining who we are as a country.

#4: The Constitution: While he supports many of the ideas of limited government, he has little to say about the actual founding document of our country. Like so many politicians of this day and age, he seems to purport the view that the Constitution is a tool to achieve his ideals, not something to think deeply about. Those who attach little significance to the ideas behind our country's founding are unlikely to employ those same ideas.

In conclusion, Newt Gingrich is defined by success. He is a Washington insider who knows how the game is played, and plays it well. There is no doubt that he will achieve many things if elected President. The problem conservative voters face is that of maintaining the principles behind his actions. While his bills may be passed, at what pragmatic cost will they come?

Herman Cain

The only minority candidate in the Republican field is Herman Cain. He rose from from humble beginnings, his father worked three jobs, to basically achieve the American Dream. He successfully climbed the corporate ladder, scuttled Hillarycare, and is now one of the front runners in the GOP primaries. But let's get to the issues:

#1: The Economy: This area of his campaign has attracted the most attention. With the 9-9-9 plan, a name obviously from the pizza industry, he plans on slaying the economic dragons that have plagued our country as of late. This plan would replace most taxes with a 9% business flat tax, a 9% individual flat tax, and a 9% national sales tax.

No plan this simple could possibly be without caveat, so he does us the favor of being honest about them. Around the country, Empowerment Zones would be set up. These would basically lower the tax rates for all involved. However, all of this smacks of an opportunity for favoritism. Nowhere does he commit to making these zones geographic. Since he was rather popular in the restaurant industry, being named CEO of the National Restaurant Association in 1996, we can assume a large amount of his financial support will come from that area. Could it be possibly conjectured that a Restaurant Empowerment Zone would be created?

#2: Immigration: It seems that the plan-maker in his staff worked overtime on economic issues, but forgot to give him anything specific to say on immigration. His main position seems to be enforcing current laws and securing our borders. And his commitment stops there. Does he support a border fence? Is he against the DREAM act? Does he even have a plan?

#3: National Security: While his website gives us little actual information, his remarks in several of the debates seem rather centrist. He is not inherently against Iran possessing a nuclear weapon, choosing rather to believe, in a rather Paul-esque fashion, that they would simply want it to matter on the international stage. Why should the opinions of a brutal police state matter at all? Does he recognize Iran's utter hypocrisy? Does he think that they would treat their nuclear weapons in a sane manner? Having a viable national defense institution can only go so far in a world with suitcase nukes.

#4: The Constitution: While those on top usually do their best to identify with their party, Cain has had little to say about the renewed interest in our nation's founding document. It is rather odd that a growing section of the Republican Party, the Tea Party, is completely ignored by him. Does he think that a long, hard look should be taken at the constitutionality of the federal government? Does he have any opinions on the ideas that went into creating it? We are quite simply left in the dark.

In conclusion, Herman Cain is an odd, but very smart candidate. While he can't seem to be bothered by most issues, he has taken one of them and made it his defining idea. He is your typical mainline conservative, but we are left to wonder if he has fully thought through what that means.

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann is a fairly unique GOP presidential candidate, in that she is obviously a woman. Other than that, she seems to want to conform to the new wave in the Republican Party. She is an ardent Tea Party supporter, perhaps the most dedicated out of the entire field. President Obama must have been thinking specifically about her when he quipped that middle Americans just "cling to their guns and religion." On that note, she seems to be the only truly evangelical Christian among the candidates.


Her Tea Party roots run deep. In high school she dated Thomas Jefferson AND John Adams. In college she was roommates with Sarah Palin. She drinks only Earl Grey. However, while claiming to really, really support the Founding Fathers, she has apparently found it necessary to add to their number when it is convenient per her "misspeaking" about to which generation John Quincy Adams belonged to. But let's get to the issues.


#1: The Economy:  From her website:


"I will lead the way in cutting spending, reducing taxes and deep-sixing our 3.8 million-word Internal Revenue Code so companies can invest again. As a first order of business, I will direct the elimination of counterproductive regulations, repeal Obamacare and stop cap-and-trade in its tracks so companies can operate again. And a Bachmann Administration will create the climate of sound currency and certainty employers needed to start hiring again."


In keeping with the Tea Party NUMBER ONE MAIN GOAL, she wants to repeal Obamacare first. In addition, she supports a down-sizing regulation and creating the "climate of sound currency". 


Sound currency is not a 'climate'. Speaking that way dangerously continues the philosophy that removed the gold and silver standards. To say that it is a climate implies that the government must constantly tinker with the economy, making sure everyone behaves. She includes another vaguely put point: "deep-sixing our 3.8 million-word Internal Revenue Code". That could mean almost anything.


#2: Immigration Reform: From the Orlando debate: 


"The federal government has failed the American people and has failed the states. It's reprehensible that Pres. Obama has sued Arizona for trying to protect the people in Arizona. That's wrong. As president, I would do what my job would demand of me. That's to uphold the sovereignty of the United States of America. To do that, I would build a fence on America's southern border on every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border. I think that's what we have to do, not only build it, but then also have sufficient border security and enforce the laws that are on the books with the ICE agents, with our border security. And here's the other thing I would do. I would not allow taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens or for their children. That's a madness. End the madness for illegal aliens to come into the United States of America."


Apparently, she has not considered that approximately one half of our border with Mexico is along the Rio Grande. Building a fence here would be a foolish waist of funds, and it shows how little thought she has put into this issue.


In her defense, she does support upholding current immigration laws and not allowing taxpayer-funded benefits for illegals. Thus she basically supports what every other candidate except Rick Perry supports.


#3: National Security:


Her website's section on national security is mainly an attack on the current president. However, at the end of the section, she makes several claims that give us a picture of how she would run things. The point that jumps out the most is her last one, that she "will not rest until the war on terror is won." Unless she wants to go many, many years without sleep, she must come up with a more realistic, and specific solution. Does she support continuing the unpopular and expensive war in Afghanistan? Does she support expanding operations into Pakistan? Does she support increased military involvement in the Horn of Africa?


She also states that she will make sure America remains second-to-none in the military theater, while judiciously applying our forces. This is a noble goal, and she deserves to be praised for it. However, America is in a gigantic debt crisis. To do what sounds like increasing military spending is a dangerous thing thing, and not exactly something that Democrats will support.


#4: The Constitution:


No one has such a purported love for the Constitution than Bachmann. One is led to think that if the Constitution had not been written, she would just lay down and die. Which leads to a question: Does she fully understand the driving principles behind the Constitution? It is one thing to fully agree with every word in it, but yet another to know that it was, in fact, a compromise. While saying that she has a 'titanium spine', her claim to credibility is her undying support for one of history's most successful compromises.


It would be better if she spoke more about her position on the ideas from the opposing sides that built the document. Does she support a strong federal government? Or does she support strong state's rights?


In conclusion, Michele Bachmann seems to be a strong Tea Party favorite, but don't expect her to have broad appeal beyond that movement. She can't seem to come up with anything original to say, so we don't have many reasons to vote specifically for her.

An Overview of the Field

Over the next several weeks, months and/or years we plan on running a series of posts, each focusing on a particular Republican presidential candidate. Each one will be examined according to his or her elect-ability and stance on various issues. Hopefully, we will have completed this by the time the first primaries have rolled around and things start heating up.

The issues that are certainly going to dominate the election are:

-The economy, stupid
-Immigration
-National Security
-Overall constitutionality of the government

First, the economy. Not a whole lot needs to be said about this, obviously. However, it needs to be pointed out that government cannot create jobs, and those candidates claiming much experience in that area are going to find said experience next to useless. As has been said by some, government can merely create the conditions businesses to succeed. When candidates cite being able to run growing businesses, this means being able to adapt quickly to changing market conditions, keeping costs down and revenues high. Not a whole lot of this has to do with creating a business-friendly domestic economy. Sorry, Mitt.

Immigration reform has been badly needed for many years now. The nation is caught wondering what to do with tens of millions of illegals, most of whom mean no harm. Is it just to grant them all amnesty and basically undermine immigration law? Would it be better to deport all illegals, ripping apart families and wiping out a large part of the workforce? Let's hope this issue is decided more out of a concern for constitutionality than keeping votes.

National security will play a large role in the primaries, with battle lines being drawn quickly. Republicans need to find a solution that doesn't look like flip-flopping, since most of them supported both of the wars currently being waged at one time or another. If they decide to continue them, they need to prove they can win. If they choose to end them, they must prove they can continue to protect the country.

With the advent of the Tea Party, the national conversation about the Constitution has thankfully picked up speed. The goal should not be to elect whoever can make the most kitschy comments about the Founders and their great love for the Constitution. Rather, it should be focused on a radical reevaluation of the Federal Government, and how much of it should be dismantled and when.

Its shaping up to be an interesting race, guys, and we are really excited to further explore the field. Remember, the important thing is BTHO of BHO!

The Need For RoE In Cyberwarfare

In simpler times long ago, an act of war was easily defined as an incident of purposeful, and harmful, violence directed against one country from another. This made it rather easy to figure out if war was being made on you, or if you were making war on someone else. For example, the War of Jenkin's Ear. A Spanish boarding party cut off the ear of a British captain, and a 10 year war ensued in which 20,000 men were lost, and 407 ships destroyed.

Times have obviously changed a bit since then. Notably, computers and cyberspace have dramatically changed our lives. With the advent of cloud-computing, the internet has become an essential tool. Ever increasing in ubiquity, the internet now controls massive amounts of infrastructure, news outlets, and financial institutions. A feature of this new system is that most of the previously mentioned edifices are accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

The problem with this is that those who would do us harm are not barred from this access. Several times in all-too-recent history, governmental and commercial websites have been maliciously attacked by self-proclaimed "hacktivists", such as Anonymous, with the general agenda of bringing about an anarchistic landscape on the net. In addition to these groups, entire governments have become involved. Therein lie several big questions: What exactly constitutes an act of war in cyberspace? Is it the same as in the "real world"? What sort of retaliation, if any, is required or justifiable? To what extent should cyber-attacks influence international relations?

Consider this: Chinese commandos land in Seattle and burn down Amazon.com's headquarters. Obviously this is an act of aggression, and would be treated as a declaration of war. However, if Chinese hackers bring down Amazon.com's website, little is said about the matter. If American fighter jets and bombers destroyed an Iranian nuclear facility, it would obviously be an act of war. But if American and Israeli computer scientists devise the nastiest computer worm invented and launch it on an Iranian nuclear facility, no accusations are made.

Ourselves and our enemies have done more than cut off each other's ears, yet war has not broken out, and the perpetrators have gone unpunished. Thoughts, anyone?

They're Rioting in Africa

So... Anyone seen the news lately? It seems that violent protests have rocked the Old World. From Tunisia to Egypt to England to Syria, something is lighting both cars and people on fire.

The world is burning!

People are angry!

But why?


Well, it really depends on the particular situation. For example, in England, the unrest appears to be race-based. In Egypt, we can infer that the riots started out of a difference in governmental philosophical theories between the people and, well, the government.


But, which one of these is the best case-study? I would contend that Syria gets the prize for that. Here's why:

• A brutal government
• An angry populace
• Rising death tolls
• No physical international support
• Continuing violence over several months

You will probably notice that Syria is the only country that meets all of the above criteria. An uprising in these conditions is very hard to sustain, yet the Syrians are doing it. This requires extreme dedication to their cause, rivaled only by the IRA at the worst periods of The Troubles. They shouldn't be able to do this, but they are. Why?

Ain't no party like a Boston party!

Perhaps we can glean the answer to this mighty poser from a look at American history. It seems that in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers found themselves in precisely the same position.

When people do things that defy reason or safety, when they take risks without hope of survival, they are either insane or they are idealists. Then again, a lot of idealists are insane. But the American revolutionaries were fighting for something bigger than themselves, and worth dying for. That is, they were fighting to destroy an illegitimate government that stood against everything they believed in.

Sound familiar? The riots in Syria are the cries of freedom from the those oppressed by an illegitimate government. This is why these people continue to fight, even when it makes no sense to continue. America should take a strong stand for the Syrian people, and for liberty everywhere. If we ignore the people here, where they are fighting for a uniquely American cause, what exactly are we willing to fight for?

Philosophy and Science: Part Two

After taking a very long, unplanned, break from my blog, I see that I have left a series of posts dangling for all to see. Hopefully this post will finish it and I can begin writing things that have been growing in my mind.

It would seem that, given its importance in the foundation of our worldview, that we can apply religion wherever we want it, in any field of thought. While this is true to a certain extent, it is not inherently valid.

Consider the field of science. Can we take the Bible and make scientific hypotheses that can be tested and experimented upon? No. Science must be built upon human experience. While the principles that we discover from human experience were laid down by the Creator, they do not come from the Bible.

This was the main problem with the religious establishment during the period mentioned in the previous post. The Church is not supposed to make any pretensions upon Science. We derive philosophy from religion, and science from experience. The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific textbook.

Likewise, Science should not make any pretensions upon the Church. That is the main problem with the scientific establishment today. We cannot possibly derive life's purpose from the General Theory of Relativity. We cannot allow scientific data to decide what we believe about God.

Of course, our faith should never collide with valid science. The Creator of the Universe did not use erroneous principles when writing to His people.

The bottom line: When in doubt about philosophy, go back the Bible. When in doubt about science, go back to human experience. Make no attempt to confuse the two.