The Day After...

Finally. While we have been told that 04 November is the date to be circled on the calendar, if we’re truly honest, the real date highlighted in bright red has been 05 November. It’s over! In a country where people frequently grouse about our collective attention span, who thought a twenty-one month long presidential campaign would be a good idea?
But, here we are, at last. And we have a winner. Congratulations are due to Senator Obama!
It’s more than likely that while many people are celebrating (and rightly so), there’s at least one or two for whom last night was a crushing disappointment and defeat. Now, we will see one of the finest parts of America – the way we come back together as a country, united being the first word in our name, and move forward.
We don’t have to be unified in our joy and celebrations, though we should be. Senator Obama has achieved a success that to date has been enjoyed by only forty-three individuals before him. Out of the billions of Americans who’ve come and gone, this is nothing at which to sneer. And when we factor in his being the first black President, how can we not applaud?
Certainly, there will be hurt feelings and hardened attitudes. “This should make them happy,” was overheard more than once this morning. Whether the them refers to Democrats, Liberals, or more than likely, blacks in our country, as insincere as the wish is by those grumbling it, no doubt, they are happy.
As am I. We will soon witness a peaceful transfer of power in this country, again. A roundly despised leader is not being run out of town by tanks, nor being hung by his neck from the nearest light pole. The military of this country is not the grantor of power as it is in so many others – a simple ballot box is.
We will watch as the People of this country demonstrate one of the greatest lessons of this campaign – if you want change (in whatever form it may come to you), you need to work for it. And lo, Senator Obama, Senator Biden, and his legions of supporters certainly did work for it, very hard work. Change is accessible by one and all in this great land of ours.
Oh, and for those who truly cannot fathom nor accept the concept of President Obama, then you can always take heart that you, too, can work for change. As is heard in stadiums frequently this time of year, “Wait till next time,” may be your new refrain. Start when you’re ready – the current record for a campaign is only twenty-one months.

Hillary Hears a Sniper

It's definitely making the news now... Senator Clinton made a speech about how when she went to Bosnia, as First Lady, she landed under sniper fire.

Except, it wasn't true.

Now, the video below by (believe it or not, CBS News) deconstructs her lie. However, it shouldn't even be necessary to do that.

Not, if you have a little common sense.

At the time, she was First Lady of the United States of America. Such a position, while contrary to her assertion of its power, IS a very symbolic one. As such, her safety is paramount. Thus, the United States Secret Service would have never tolerated nor allowed the First Lady to land where she was at risk of being killed by sniper. And if she had really pushed the issue, there would have been extraordinary measures taken to prevent it.

Along for the ride was Chelsea, the First Daughter. Perhaps even more of an emotional target, her presence would also trigger extreme protection. Besides, what mother takes a daughter into sniper fire?

There were USO entertainers aboard, notably Sinbad and Cheryl Crow. Big names. No one wants their safety compromised either.

And if the USSS didn't have a coronary about flying into sniper fire with the First Lady, First Daughter, and two huge celebrities... the USAF brass would have gone to extra lengths to make sure nothing happened while the group was under their care and protection.

So, besides the fact that her story is a complete fabrication, which should certainly give voters pause, especially if she says it's because she was sleep deprived (brings the 3 am ad into new light if she's not at her mental best with low sleep), it's beyond plausibility.

It is apocryphal that politicians lie... but one thing that is expected is that they should be able to lie convincingly. And I would expect one with as much practice as her to be much better at it and not tell a lie so transparent, so blatant, that even CBS News can take it apart.

Which Part Will He Change?

I'm looking for verification of this. It was sent to me, and a friend said she heard it, but I can't find any transcripts except for a blurb on National Review Online that's tongue-in-cheek.

So...

Did Senator Obama really say this:

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."

A Class Act

Mike Huckabee conceded his campaign to John McCain.

And it was a classy speech.

I applaud Mr. Huckabee for continuing his campaign through to the end. People know how I feel about those who start a campaign and quit.

A man of principle... he campaigned through to the end, and he stopped when he said he would... when someone had clearly won.

Here's his speech:

Life Imitates "West Wing"

I've been a humongous fan of The West Wing for... years. Since it broadcast. I always thought that it was very well written (hat tip to Aaron Sorkin).

Interestingly enough, the folks over at Slate have compared the final season Presidential campaign with this year's campaign.

Take a look:

Article 2, Section 1

Is Senator McCain eligible to be President of the United States?

The Democrats are having a debate, errr, squable, about qualifications for the Presidency and whether Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is more qualified...

... but what about Senator McCain?

Admittedly, the following argument is surrounded by ambiguity since there is no decisive law on it. But, should it ever become a case, it'll come down to a decision by the United States Supreme Court. (And people wonder why whom a President selects for Justices of the Supreme Court might be important?)

It starts with Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States of America (a.k.a., the Users' Manual to our country). This section defines the office of the Presidency, and specifically for our discussion, there's Clause 5: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. And, the Canal Zone is not a State. (Also, the CZ is not the District of Columbia...)

Therefore, Senator McCain (and my son, amongst others) is not a natural born Citizen.

And thus, not eligible for the Presidency...

Surprising Conservative Results... In Washington

The state of Washington is not known for its conservative leanings. So, it's a tad revealing to see:

McCain - 29.52%
Huckabee - 27.46%
Paul - 23.83%
Quitter - 19.18%

Informed Voters

Ok, two of my electoral pet peeves are candidates who quit and the uninformed voter.

These two peeves are showing nicely in recent primary results.

I was looking at Wisconsin's primary results. Yes, all the precincts aren't in yet, but some things are obvious.

And not just that Senators Obama and McCain have won.

If you watch the tickers at the bottom of the news channels, you may (thought probably won't) notice that the percentages for each side's top two doesn't add up to 100%. Why is that?

Because of the previously mentioned convergence of Candidate Quitters and the Uninformed Voter.

For the Democrats, let's proudly congratulate each one of the following voters for either believing so strongly in their candidate of choice that they could care less that they don't have the backbone and stamina to see a campaign through OR are so uninformed that they don't know that their candidate has quit (with 81% of the precincts reporting):

• 5,359 votes for Mr. Edwards
• 2,070 votes for Rep. Kucinich
• 679 votes for Sen. Biden (been out a LOOOONG time)
• 416 votes for Gov. Richardson
• 400 votes for Sen. Dodd
• 382 votes for Mr. Gravel

That's nearly 10,000 voters on the Democrat side who as surely voted for their candidate as if they'd voted for Bugs Bunny (in my book, comparably as qualified as some of those other names.) Of some comfort is that these folks only comprised 1% of the voters casting votes.

And the Republicans were not immune (with 81% of precincts reporting):

• 15,021 for Rep. Paul (technically, he's not quit, nor suspended his campaign - however, he HAS emailed his supporters and said he's focusing on his Congressional race)
• 6,222 for Mr. Romney
• 2,185 for Mr. Thompson
• 1,687 for Mr. Guiliani
• 684 for Rep. Hunter
• 150 for Rep. Tancredo

That's 25,949 for the Republicans. Frighteningly enough, that's 7.9% who voted for non-candidates.

Sigh.

Come on, people...

American Alienation

I've seen this on a few other blogs, and it is SPOT on. Frighteningly enough, it sounds like a few things I've been known to say.

Warning, strong, strong language. And some images that should bother you to no end.

Please, watch.

Mitt Romney Suspends Presidential Campaign

Mitt Romney suspended his campaign today.

A lot of the commentary about this is how it is a "magnaminous" move, and it generates "good will" towards a run next time.

Hogwash.

You know what I learned about Mitt Romney today? He's a quitter. Not a leader. The going got tough, the future was questionable, and he might have been embarrassed had he continued.

So, he quit.

It's an American trend. War not going well? Let's quit. Job not going well? Let's quit. Not getting the grades you like in school? Let's quit.

It's SO easy to quit.

My question to Mr. Romney is this: Over the campaign, in the elections held thus far, 4,136,944 people voted for you. During elections when turnout is notoriously low (it's SO hard to vote, don't you know), over four million people came out to support you. More than a few as recently as 48 hours ago.

And you quit.

What about your supporters in states not yet voting?

Too bad, he quit.

By the way, the same goes to the rest of the quitters - Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson. You want to lead a nation of over 300 million, but you can't tough out a campaign???

IF you're not going to finish, don't start. Don't crush people's hopes and dreams like that.

Let's look at who's left: Hillary and Obama... there's a spirited campaign. And on the Republican side, John McCain, Mike Huckabee (whom so many are writing off, yet he's still winning and fighting), and Ron Paul (whom while gaining few votes, campaigns vigorously and endlessly, which speaks well for him). Also, I suppose we can still include Mike Gravel and Alan Keyes, though... not sure their campaigns ever really started.

I cannot support quitters.

That's not a good indication of a Leadership quality. Maybe it's part of what's indoctrinated into me through the military... never leave anyone behind. Well, Mr. Romney, you just left over four million behind.

Ouch!

This was in the New York Post.

While the voters in Massachusetts are consistently able to forget Senator Kennedy's past, it's important to remember.

And despite persistence, Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

Are the States Obsolete?

Is it time for us to dissolve the fifty states (ok, some are commonwealths, but for ease, I'll say "states") and perhaps have just the USA (we'll keep the name for heritage purposes) with administrative districts?

Preposterous?

Once upon a time, notably the antebellum time (pre-1861), the States were remarkably sovereign. Federalism was fully in force with the central government playing a limited role, notably in affairs that affected all the States, and the States managing the local needs.

We have transitioned to a time where the Federal government plays a much larger role in all roles of government.

Education: Once a province of local governments and boards, schools are now managed and ruled according to the Federal government. Often Congress, and the Department of Education, enact laws and policies that all schools which receive federal funds must follow.

Crime: Think of how many crimes, once thought to be a "local" event, now involve the Federal government. Whether it's through the FBI (kidnapping), BATF (guns, tobacco, alcohol), IRS (money), or just the Department of Justice (it's amazing what the US Attorney can find to prosecute someone under - remember, Michael Vick's dogfighting case was a federal one), the Federal government has their fingers in local crimes just as much as the locals do.

Defense: Before the War Between the States, the States had their standing Armies, and the United States Army wasn't noticeably large. Units were organized and defined by their state of origin. Now, yes, we do have the National Guard for the States, but let's be realistic... they are merely subordinate to the Federal military. Virginia and South Carolina, for example, have fighter units. Against whom within the state's borders will they be attacking? Will the Governor of South Carolina order the 169th to shoot down mischevious North Carolina aircraft? Not likely. The same can be asked of Army National Guard units that don't quite fit the bill for state duty - a big need for a state to have M1A2 Main Battle Tanks?

So, that time, too, has passed.

Disasters: This would be easy, right? Local fire, local government. Local flood, local government. However, when a natural disaster occurs, is not one of the first statements that the locals have asked for Federal Disaster relief? Or, Where's FEMA? Where are the Feds? What's the President going to do?!

Taxes: Most of our taxes go to the Federal government. Ironically, a large sum is often then granted back to the States... to do the Federal government's bidding.

Infrastructure: Much of our roadway and other infrastructure funding comes from... care to guess?

These are just a few examples. But, when you watch the Presidential debates or stump speeches, isn't it interesting that most of it is formed on the "What can you do for ME?" or "What will you do for our local area?" basis of thinking? Not necessarily what will be best for the country as a whole...

Laws and regulations are vastly becoming more and more local from the Federal government, eliminating the once generous difference between the varied States. Iowa equals California equals Vermont equals Tennessee...

The time for the States has passed. Let's eliminate the middlemen, and recognize the United States as the primary, and central, government that it is.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul. IF someone recognizes the name, they tend to fall into one of two camps - those who see him as the Second Coming or those who see him as the Republican answer to Dennis Kucinich.

For the most part... I agree with Ron Paul. He sums up many of my Libertarian leanings. I also notice how easy it is to demagogue him, primarily (no pun intended) due to his views on the Iraq Theater - of which I disagree with him.

In order to expose him a bit to my loyal (and rare) readership, I thought I'd include some of the interviews Mr. Paul recently had with John Stossel (another Libertarian of whom I'm fond).

Ron Paul Interview with John Stossel

And then there's this:

My Interview with Ron Paul

By John Stossel

Over the last few months, I've received hundreds of e-mails from people asking me to interview Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, so I did.

It's refreshing to interview a politician who doesn't mince words. It's even more refreshing to interview one who understands the benefits of limited government.

Here, then, is the first in a series of columns on my talk with Ron Paul. Some of Paul's answers are shortened.

What should government do?

Ron Paul: Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.

So defense, the military, police forces enforce contracts, and that's about it?

That's it. We would have a court system to enforce contracts, and when people do harm to others, when they take property or injure property, or pollute a neighbor's air, I think there's a role for government to protect our environment through private-property rights.

So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do.

The Department of Education. You'd get rid of it?

Yes. We don't need it.

How will people get educated?

We might get better education. The evidence shows, since the 1950s, since the federal government's gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up.

The federal government should have no role?

There's no authority for it, and . they've proved themselves inefficient. The one city they're totally in charge of is Washington, D.C. Thirteen thousand dollars a year per student. They have more guns, more drugs, more violence. So there's no evidence that the government can do a very good job.

The Department of Energy.

We don't need a Department of Energy. It serves the interests of big business.

Other cabinet departments? Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development. You'd get rid of all of them?

Yeah. Of course, that's not on the immediate agenda, but they're unnecessary, and we should think about what kind of a country we would have without these departments, and I think we would have a better country, and all those problems that they're supposed to solve, I think, would be lessened.

The Commerce Department? We don't need the Commerce Department to have commerce?

No, absolutely not.

Homeland Security. Isn't that a role for the federal government?

Not really, not the way that's designed. That's the biggest bureaucracy of them all. There are some parts that are OK. You know, they put the Coast Guard in there, and they put FEMA in there, and everybody's bunched together. And I think it was failure of government on 9/11, not the fact that we didn't have the Department of Homeland Security and . a national ID card, and this constant surveillance and loss of our privacy.

Failure of government how?

We spent $40 billion on intelligence gathering, and it didn't prevent (the 9/11 attacks) from happening. But the government was in charge of the airlines. FAA, they were supposed to inspect the people as they went on, and you weren't supposed to resist any takeovers, and (passengers and pilots) weren't allowed to have a gun. Maybe if you and I had the airlines, we might have said, "Hey, you know, we want to protect our passengers. Maybe we should have a stronger door on there, maybe we ought to give our pilots a gun." So 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

So government creates too many rules, and the wrong ones?

That basically it. Most of the time well-intentioned -- but good intentions will not solve our problems.

And...

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate saying we should get our troops out of Iraq -- now. Here's more of my edited interview with the congressman.

Some people say that if we don't attack the enemy there, they'll attack us here.

Ron Paul: I think the opposite is true. The radicals were able to use our bases in Saudi Arabia and the bombing of Iraq (from 1991 to 2001) as a reason to come over here. If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do some shooting.

s this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.

I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.

Many say the surge in Iraq is succeeding, that we're at a turning point now, and we are creating a model of democracy in a part of the world that hasn't seen that.

That's the propaganda. I don't happen to believe that.

And if in most of Iraq, some religious fanatic comes to power and has money to buy nuclear weapons, we should just leave him alone?

The Soviets had the technology. They were 90 miles off our shore, and they had nuclear weapons there. But we were able to talk to them. We took our missiles out of Turkey. They took the missiles out of Cuba. We should be talking to people like this. It's the lack of diplomacy that is the greatest threat, not the weapons themselves.

You say we shouldn't be the world's policemen. Isn't it our responsibility to help others?

It's OK for us to personally help other people. But to go around the world and spread democracy -- goodness, no -- too many unintended consequences. It usually requires force. I think we should only do those things under the prescribed conditions of the Constitution.

Is war ever justifiable?

Sure. If you're attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.

So in World War II, we were justified?

Sure.

How about going into Afghanistan after Sept. 11?

I voted for that authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.

The Korean War?

Totally unjustified.

Kosovo?

Absolutely unjustified.

Vietnam?

A horror.

The first Iraq war? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He might have invaded the next country, and the next.

I bet Israel would have done something about it, and I bet Saudi Arabia maybe would have talked to Israel. I think if it would have been left to the region, they might have taken care of Saddam Hussein in 1990 and we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

What if there's genocide and terrible suffering in a country?

It's a tragedy, and we can have a moral statement, but you can't use force of arms to invade other countries to make them better people. Our job is to make us a better people.

You'd pull American troops out of Korea, Germany, the Middle East, everywhere?

I would. Under the Constitution, we don't have the authority to just put troops in foreign countries willy-nilly when we're not at war.

If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?

Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.

If China invaded Taiwan?

That's a border war, and they should deal with it.

If Canada invades Montana?

I think that might be a little bit different. Montana probably could take care of it, but we'd probably help them out from Washington if that happened.

That's a role for the federal government?

Oh, sure.

Moving along...

U.S. congressional representative and Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has been called "Dr. No" because he repeatedly votes against legislation he believes gives government too much power. If it's not in the Constitution, he says, the federal government has no business doing it. He even votes against appropriations to his constituents. Here's Part 3 of my edited interview with Rep. Paul.

Your district is subject to floods, but you vote against FEMA. Why?

Ron Paul: Because I think FEMA helps create the flood problems. (Without subsidies,) if it's risky on the Gulf Coast to build there, the insurance prices will go up. If (they're) too high, nobody will build there, or they'll build there with full risk. Flood comes, wind blows your house away, you don't get reimbursed. So there might be (only) modest building in those areas. But if the government subsidizes the insurance, saying, "If you build there, don't sweat it, we're going to bail you out," more people move into the flood-prone areas. Then who are the people that have to bail you out? Somebody that lives out in the desert. It's unfair, it's not good economics. You create more problems, more houses get flooded, and it becomes a general problem rather than an individual problem. We have undermined is the principle of measuring risk. Then people do things that they wouldn't have otherwise done.

You also say, "no farm subsidies."

No, I can't quite find (the farm-subsidy program) in the Constitution.

Don't we need farm subsidies to make sure we have food?

It is totally unnecessary. I think (subsidies) push the prices of food up, and maybe (that) makes it more difficult for poor people to buy food. If there's a subsidy, it means the taxpayer was taxed to pay a huge corporate farmer. So it hasn't helped the people. And why should we assume that the farmers wouldn't be productive? They're hard working people. I never voted for farm subsidies, and I represent a farm district.

They forgive you for that?

The farmers will support me, but not the (farm lobby) organizations.

Most crops don't have subsidies. Yet we have plenty of (unsubsidized) peaches and plums.

When I go to the grocery store, I always marvel: Isn't it wonderful how we can see so much fresh produce there, and the prices aren't regulated? It was a fallacious argument back in the '30s that the Depression came from free markets and therefore we had to have a safety net. We gave up on believing in freedom and understanding how the market works.

You talk about freedom and tyranny. I seldom hear politicians use those words.

Those are our only two choices. We've had a grand experiment in this country, where we emphasize freedom. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty, to restrain the government. But we have forgotten that. Now we have an interpretation that means that we spy on the American people, encroach on their privacy, take care of them, run the "nanny state" -- and then we have secrecy in government. So we have it reversed. People say, "Ron, you want to go back to the dark ages of this strict interpretation of the Constitution." Well, I want to go back to the Constitution, but I don't consider it the dark ages. I think the dark ages the days were when all you had was tyranny. Freedom is new. Tyranny is old.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are enough? We don't need 55,000 pages of tax code?

Isn't that fantastic? Truth is simple. The more complex (government) is, the more leery we ought to be of what they're doing. When they say we have to solve the problems of 9/11 (by passing) the Patriot Act, that's complex. Four hundred pages, and they dump it on us an hour before we vote. You can read the Constitution and understand it, but you cannot read and understand hardly any of the legislation being passed.

And lastly...

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.

Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.

We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue. Today it's a big issue because people are hurting; they can't keep up with paying their bills. They see (illegals) using food stamps, in the emergency rooms, demanding bilingual education in the schools. The costs are going up.

So get rid of all those programs? Every one?

I would. Get rid of the incentives and work toward a real solution.

You oppose "birthright citizenship," which says that the child of an illegal immigrant who gives birth in America is a U.S. citizen. But that right to citizenship is in the Constitution, isn't it?

There's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment. It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here. But it's a little bit confusing. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There's a question on that, and I want to clarify it. I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose and get on the welfare rolls.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home."

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country. There was a time when (immigrants did that). That was when they didn't expect to get easy amnesty.

So, these are some of his views. Something to think about. For more, please go to his Website. Remember, when it's your turn to vote, educate yourself... and vote for whom you believe in. It's the only way to make your beliefs truly known.

(Many thanks to the transcripts from Real Clear Politics.)

What We Should Be Asking

I was chatting with a good friend tonight, and our topics meandered, as internet chats tend to do.

One of the questions raise was, naturally, about the next Presidential election. I've always beleived that we ask our candidates the wrong questions. Yes, surely we would like to know where they stand, or would have stood, on recent issues of importance to us. How does Candidate Smith feel about drugs? Stem cells? The ubiquitous abortion question? Crime? Gun Control? Education? Etc., etc., etc.

But, contrary to what we've been led to believe since a certain scandal (you remember, "... it doesn't matter what he does on his own time, or his character, it's how he does the job..."), character does count.

We need to have some idea of what the President will do when our next unknown situation comes along.



For example.

Today's news story: Extremists Driving School Buses

It seems that there are people of extremists nature driving our children around. Concerned? No, of course not. Britney may have fallen in love in re-hab.

Besides, we're told it's not a concern. Of course, the FBI is often in the habit of investigating and chasing down leads of people that shouldn't concern us.


So, let's imagine a scenario...

It's not too long after the new President has taken office. The terrorists have listened to seven years about how we took the fight "over there" to keep them from hurting us "over here". And how they haven't been successful.

In the meantime, they've studied us. They know our weakest areas. Partly due to our freely discussing our weaknesses and doing exposes whenever a weakness comes out. (Always on an anonymous and confidential basis, of course.)

Their planners have worked hard. They've needed to get people into the country. While they might go through the new passport process, it's more likely that they came through one of our porous borders. Not as a group, but separately... over time.

So, cells in place? Check. Now, they may be innocuous and not even look Arab OR they may go the route of being blatant and using our political correctness against us (see: USAir imams).

They will need explosives... hmmm. Given the arms market, and the ease of moving things around... let's give this one a Check.

Target? Think for a second. In any issue that comes up, what is the number one way of trying to sway the emotions? "What about the children?" If the children aren't safe, no one is. That's our psyche. Nothing will tear at us more than a hurt child.

Opportunity? Hmmm, how about... school buses?

Now, how to do it? Well, you need to know where the schools are. Ok, easy. School schedules? Use the local school website. Bus routes? Also easily obtainable, but if nothing else, rent a minivan or two, and follow something big and yellow around town. Good chance it's a school bus.

School buses aren't inspected when they pull up to the school, are they? Nah.

So, you have your cells. Spread them around the country. No, not the big cities... random "Heartland" cities... maybe those with large school districts. For good measure, and to account for a possible 25% failure rate, let's plan for maybe 20 different cities.

Once all is planned, and drivers are hired (several per district, redundancy is good)... you load each bus with 1,000 pounds of TNT or some other handy-dandy explosive.

Select a morning.

Coordinate with all the cells.

And then, on that morning... as the bus in in line, with all of the other buses, also full of children (each bus often holds between 45-60 children), parked in front of the local elementary school... where lots of loving parents have recently dropped off their prides and joys...

Detonation.



CNN is carrying the news... reports are coming in from around the country. Early estimates are between 1,500 and 2,000 children, most kindergarteners through fourth grade (under 10, folks), are dead. Along with parents and teachers. Helicopters and cell phone videos are showing large craters, and burned out hulks of buses, schools collapsed, a flag pole snapped in two, the burnt, torn flag flapping in the smoky breeze.

And then, all of the networks carry the image of the day... CNN/MSNBC/FOX/EVERYBODY shows a paremedic, tears streaming down his stoic face, bringing out the body of a young kindergartener. Her hand is still clutching her Strawberry Shortcake doll. The reporter tells us that the blanket covering her is to hide the fact that half her body isn't there anymore.



Question: When the adviser leans over to tell the President the news, whom do you want the President to be? Whom do you want the President to have for advisers? Because we all know that one of the thoughts that our new President will have is to turn to or call his (or her, Hillary fans) closest advisers and friends and ask, "Oh my God, what do I do now?"



Scenario continued: Early reports show that the intelligence agencies have been tracking some of those suspected of carrying out the attack. They come from countries such as (hmmm, let's say...) Libya, Syria, and Egypt (one of our allies). Quite a few groups are claiming credit, and there are even images of celebrations in the streets of some nations.

What do we do? How do we respond?

What effect will this have? How many parents will send their kids to school the next day?

Next week?

If the kids aren't at school... they're at home. Someone has to watch them. There goes the workforce.

And how long before parents piece it together... if they're not safe at our government schools, what about day care centers? Uh oh.

If our workforce isn't at work... then what about the economy.

And where else will people not go? Will parents let their teenagers go to hang out at the mall? Not likely. Expect malls to close.

Gun ownership will of course go up. There may even be an occasional accidental shooting as some concerned, nervous parent, untrained in their new gun, mistakes ______________ as a terrorist. (I'm not against gun ownership, but it is a potential result.)

The economy will come to a standstill. Our societal framework will be stressed. For as bad as 9/11 was, most of us didn't work in tall sky-scrapers in New York, and quite a few of us didn't fly. So, after awhile, even though it was a monumental tragedy and touched us deeply, we could still send our children to school in perceived and trusted safety and go to work.



Past issues are important, but we need to know what our next President is made of at his core. For, when the next scenario comes (and it will), we will want to know what will he do? Is he up to the task?

Who do you want to be given the news and have to ask, "Oh my God, what do I do now?"