TOP

Why I’m Backing Rick Santorum

Feb 08
Posted by Kevin Tracy in 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, China, Colorado, Gingrich, Islam, Israel, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Obama, Palestine, Politicians, Presidential Race, Religious Intolerance, Republican, Romney, Santorum, South Carolina, Venezuela

20120208-084646.jpgI had no intention of endorsing a candidate until we had one conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, but I felt compelled to back Rick Santorum after the events of the last couple of weeks unfolded.

In particular, the Obama administration demanding the Catholic Church’s many charities and hospitals provide access to abortions and contraceptives for its employees and patients was a screaming red flag that Obama needs to be a one term President.

I knew he was a liberal when I voted for him in 2008, but I never would have imagined he would have the success he’s had getting his agenda put into action. In fact, he’s managed to do almost everything I thought he couldn’t do on the domestic front and simultaneously FAILED to do what I most sincerely hoped he would do (defend Network Neutrality).

It is very important to me that we defeat Barack Obama in November. As I wrote earlier, Mitt Romney will not defeat Barack Obama for the same reason we lost in 2006 and 2008. Mitt Romney doesn’t want you to vote for him, he wants you to vote against Obama. Unfortunately, for him at least, people would sooner stay home and watch television than go to the polls to vote when they have nothing to vote for.

Of the Republicans in the race (a category Ron Paul does not belong in as a radical reactionary), only Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have messages that conservatives and some independents can actively support.

Both of these candidates have their pros; which is why I chose to stay away from officially supporting anybody up to now. However, I think Newt Gingrich’s cons will ultimately stop him from defeating Obama in November. Generally speaking, not a lot of independent women will vote for Gingrich. Winning the “soccer moms” was a huge part of the success of Bush in 2000 and 2004 and a strength of Obama in 2008. If we’re going to win in 2012, we need those votes back on our side. I don’t think Gingrich can do that.

Newt Gingrich, as much as I admire and respect the man, has as much baggage as ideas. Without the baggage (and without saying Muslims should have to take a special loyalty oath), I probably would have endorsed Newt a lot earlier. But we have to live with our mistakes and deal with the consequences. I can forgive Newt Gingrich, but there’s a huge difference between forgiving him and believing he can win the general election.

Rick Santorum, on the other hand, may not have an idea a minute; but as I said earlier, this makes him a truer conservative in some ways. I believe Santorum is also going to play better with moderate voters (including women) because of his aggressive and seemingly sound plan to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

Rick Santorum is somebody conservatives can be excited about, moderates/independents won’t reject, and center-left Democrats will find likable and trustworthy.

Readers, if you want a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, if you want to defeat Barack Obama; Rick Santorum is your candidate.

Think about this, too. Right now, Rick Santorum has won four states to Mitt Romney’s three. If his strategists had listened to me and skipped New Hampshire, Santorum may have won South Carolina, too. That’s five states. If Gingrich didn’t have the South Carolina boost, he may have dropped out of the race that night. If his supporters went to Santorum, Romney would have lost Florida. That’s six states for Santorum. If he won Florida, Santorum probably would have won Nevada, too.

This tells us two things. First, somebody should be paying me a lot of money to be a strategist for them.

Second, Rick Santorum might have been our nominee by now if not for falling into the New Hampshire trap. He still can win this nomination and stop Mitt Romney, but Newt Gingrich really needs to step aside and let us rally around one conservative candidate.

Read More
Comments (0)
TOP

Does human equality stop at the water’s edge?

Jan 25
Posted by Kevin Tracy in International, Intolerance, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Politics, Racism, Religious Intolerance, Syria, Tibet

20120125-171921.jpgHere in the United States, we are all familiar with the phrase that “all men are created equal.” Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in our Declaration of Independence and it’s been repeated countless times and across the world. Unfortunately, it seems like few people actually think about the implications this would have for global policy making. Not surprisingly, the blind fools following Ron Paul; who evoke the Founders at every turn as though they just had lunch with them; are the most oblivious.

A while ago, a handful of good people from here in Northwest Indiana asked me, “Can a Christian be a libertarian?”

The short version of my answer was, “There are too many denominations to say anything about all Christians, but from my perspective – no.” My primary argument was rooted in the equal creation of men.

One of the most important stories in the Bible is when Kane kills his brother Abel.

Genesis 4:9
And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered, I know not: am I my brother’s keeper?

What better introduction to the Bible can there be than Genesis? It establishes that man is fallen so that everything that follows can tell us how to find salvation. And then Kane asking the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” – and God doesn’t answer him directly, almost like it would be spoiling what is to come next. The answer to Kane’s question, of course, is YES! YOU ABSOLUTELY ARE YOUR BROTHER’S KEEPER!

Matthew 25:40
And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

Generally speaking, I think most American Christians at least try to live up to this incredibly challenging standard set for them when it comes to other Americans. The question at the core of this post is whether or not this standard applies to our international brethren as well.

It’s important because the issue keeps manifesting itself in many different ways in our increasingly globalized world.

Should Christians leave water, food, and maps around our southern border for illegal immigrants to ensure their SAFE crossing or let them suffer and very possibly die a grueling death?

Should the United States aggressively promote human rights and popular uprisings against dictatorships where our help is desired, such as Libya and Syria? Are Americans the only people who have a right to choose their government or do all people deserve that freedom? (The American Revolution would have failed if it wasn’t for French assistance, so don’t give me that nonsense about doing it by themselves – especially in an era of flying gunships, smart bombs, automatic firearms, and digital warfare)

Should we aggressively fight any government attempting genocide to save millions of innocent lives?

Should we urge Israel to give millions of Christians and Muslims in the West Bank the right to vote for representation in Israel’s government or grant statehood to the Palestinians?

Should we make our petitions for the respect and independence of Tibet and her people and culture more forceful?

After all, if Americans were experiencing religious, ethnic, or cultural, or civic oppression, the government would step in and defend the rights we believed were given to us by our universal Creator.

If you believe Christianity tells you that strangers, even those from foreign lands, are your brothers; if you believe all men are created equal and not just all Americans; we have some evaluating to do of our foreign policy.

Read More
Comments (2)
TOP

Palestinians taking statehood bid to the UN

Sep 19
Posted by Kevin Tracy in 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Britain, China, Columbia, Egypt, France, Gabon, Germany, History, India, International, Intolerance, Israel, Lebanon, National Security, Nigeria, Obama, Palestine, Perry, Politicians, Politics, Portugal, Presidential Race, Religious Intolerance, Republican, Romney, Russia, South Africa, Syria, United Nations

It’s times like these that international politics can be really fun to cover and discuss.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is in New York and has officially requested that the United Nations grant the Palestinians full UN membership; which means Palestine would be a recognized and sovereign state.  The process for this is pretty simple.  First, the United Nations Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Brazil, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, South Africa, Nigeria, Gabon, Lebanon, India, Portugal, and Germany) must vote on the matter.  While the vote doesn’t have to be unanimous, the five permanent members of the Security Council (US, UK, FR, RU, CN) each of the power of veto.  From there, the General Assembly of the United Nations; which is highly sympathetic to the Palestinian plight; would vote on the matter.  Obviously, they would vote overwhelmingly to create a Palestinian State based on the 1967 borders).

Yet the UN Security Council will likely stop President Abbas in his tracks because the Obama Administration has constantly said that a Palestinian State must come from negotiations with Israel and not from the United Nations.  While the White House and the State Department haven’t officially said they would veto the Palestinian bid for statehood, the odds are pretty good that the veto is inevitable.  The Obama Administration is probably just hoping that they can convince President Abbas and the Palestinians to withdraw their request so they don’t have to veto it.  After all, the Obama team has made great strides in improving US relations with not only the Arab world, but the rest of the world as well.   Blatantly denying Palestinians statehood would tarnish our international image again.  The US may not be the only veto, however.  France has recently come forward as well, saying the current bid for statehood would not make it out of the Security Council.  It is very probably that the State Department is working behind the scenes to get as many “No” votes and vetoes as possible prior to the vote.

But wait a minute!  According to virtually every Republican politician and conservative news commentator, President Obama is in bed (figuratively) with the Palestinians and secretly hates Israel!  Why on earth would he behave like this?

The truth is this.  Even if the United States allow the UN Security Council to pass the resolution for Palestinian Statehood and the measure passed in the General Assembly of the United Nations, it wouldn’t do a whole heck of a lot.  Israel’s government and military has ignored virtually every United Nations resolution and international agreement it has come across.  Murdering civilians (including Christians), political assassinations (not including the Palestinian terrorists who had it coming), home demolitions, crop destruction, denial of hospital care, illegal settlements, and encroachment on the 1967 borders are just a few of the many violations committed by the Israeli government.

I would like to now make a point that the Israeli people are in no way responsible for all the illegal actions of their government.  My criticism is directed at a government, not at the people.  In fact, many Israelis are openly opposed to the violent and illegal actions of their government.

So, let’s say the United Nations acknowledges a Palestinian State.  Will Israel end its violations of the Palestinian people?  No.

History has proven that to be true.

Will anybody come to their defense?  No.

History has actually proven this to be untrue.  Several times, the Arab nations of the world have attacked Israel and each time, the Israelis counter-attacked and took more Arab land.  However; given the peace overtures of the last 20 years by Jordan and the civil unrest in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt; it is hard to imagine any Arab nation pledging enough military support to defend the Palestinians.  Even more remote is the idea of any of these countries working together given the sharp contrast between their political systems right now.

And with the exception of the Ivory Coast, the United Nations has been  unwilling to engage in any kind of conflict.  Even if they were willing to, the United States would veto any action against Israel, so it’s really pretty pointless to hope they would show up to enforce any of their resolutions.

The truth of the matter is that Israel needs to be included in any talks about the creation of a Palestinian State if the state is going to exist in any practicable way.

Yet, herein exists the problem.  Israel isn’t interested in negotiating seriously.  The closest Israel ever got to creating a Palestinian State was in negotiations with President Clinton.  Yet, Israel insisted that the large water reservoirs under the West Bank would remain the property of Israel.  (If you were ever curious as to why Israel’s settlements are green and land outside of there looks like a desert, this is why).  It’s the equivalent of the British offering the to give sovereignty to the American colonists  in 1776, but insisting that our natural resources will always belong to them.  You can bet your militia clothing allotment that the revolution would have continued.

Furthermore, even if the Israeli government was interested in peace, they wouldn’t dare negotiate now.  They realize that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney would be in their corner while moderating the talks.  Personally, I suspect Obama would be relatively fair in how he negotiates the discussions, but whether he’s fair or working with the Palestinians doesn’t matter.  What matters is that the Israeli government knows they will have an advantage if Obama is voted out of office.   Of course, the negotiations won’t go anywhere because the Palestinians won’t be given a fair offer.  Thus, feeding the false-illusion that the Palestinians don’t want peace.

Of course, this is all assuming the Obama Administration vetoes the proposal for the Palestinian State.  President Obama’s rhetoric on the Israel-Palestine situation has been more in line with the rest of the international community.  It is completely possible that a last minute decision will be made to abstain from the Security Council vote.  Russia and China often abstain from UN Security Council votes for posturing purposes.  In the short term, it is their way of saying, “This doesn’t concern us.  We don’t care what you do.”  In the long term, if things go wrong, Russia will then be critical of whatever action was taken.  If things go well, they’re no worse off than they were before the vote.

If Obama were to decide to abstain, the United Nations would be satisfied that they did their part for the Palestinian people (even though nothing would change).  Israel; which is already under a tremendous amount of international pressure; wouldn’t find the global picture much worse than it already is.  Then, the only thing left to do would be to have peace talks moderated by the United States whenever President Obama leaves office, whether that be in 2013 or 2017.

If Obama abstained, however, the odds of him leaving office in 2013 would be increased.  Abstaining from key votes during his time in the Illinois State Senate was a problem for him in 2008 and this plays into that narrative.  Compounding things for President Obama politically is that abstaining from this key vote would be used to further the illusion that Obama is anti-Israel and antisemitic.

Democracy in action.

 

Read More
Comments (3)