Stop Amnesty By Supporting NumbersUSA

In an interview with the Detroit Free Press published Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stated that there would be very little opposition to a new Immigration Bill once it's brought before the next Congress. He went on to say that President-elect Obama and Senator McCain have reached an agreement on the issue. Just to be fair I should let Sen. Reid's own words be known:

Q: Will there be as much of a fight on immigration as last time?

A: We've got McCain and we've got a few others. I don't expect much of a fight at all. Now health care is going to be difficult. That's a very complicated issue. We debated at great length immigration. People understand the issues very well. We have not debated health care, so that's going to take a lot more time to do.

What's that? "We've got McCain.."??? That certainly implies that McCain has gone over to their camp, at least in the view of Harry Reid. But last I heard, McCain changed his immigration view somewhat from a pro-open-border view to one in which he believes the borders should be sealed first, and then those illegals remaining would be dealt with humanely. The latter view is one with which I have no problem.

It has been my own contention (not certain of Kev's complete view on this issue) that the border should be sealed tightly for national security. But I do not subscribe to any draconian view saying that those already here should all be deported immediately. Some certainly should, of course. But those who have long established ties, who have been productive contributors to our society should, IMHO, be allowed some sort of fast track to citizenship. And while that might not seem fair to those who've waited in line for years, it is certianly not fair, in my humble opinion, to toss all illegals over the fence when they were, for many years, beckoned to come here by our businesses and politicians, both of whom made it all too easy and tempting while looking the other way. I have sympathy for those poor neighbors south of our borders looking for a better life for themselves and their families, but I also have plenty of loathing for irresponsible authorities who allowed our sovereignty to dissolve over these many years by inviting desperate people to trash our borders. The punishment should go to the politicians.

If you harbor the same suspicions I have regarding the coming Amnesty Bill, that the fence will not be completed or that Democrats will simply allow anyone into the country who promises to vote Democrat, there are things you can do.

• First, contact NumbersUSA by clicking HERE and registering with them. They are a one-stop-shop for keeping up to date on all border related issues, keeping track of all Congressional voting on immigration matters, and sending faxes and emails to your Congressmen (they will do both, you simply click on the letter you want faxed --- It's really easy!) I have sent faxes to mine, and I actually heard back from one of them. So I know that no one is faking the faxing.
  

• Second, send a fax! But register HERE first. Then a couple of clicks later your Congressman's (or woman's) ears will turn crimson while reading your objection to the proposed irresponsible immigration plan hatched by Democrats. It is, at the very least, a fun way to let off steam.

• Third, if you have a blog or website on which you can post a banner or two, then by all means post a banner or two. Here is one that I just added to our left column:
  

• Fourth, sign the petition to President-elect Obama asking him NOT to support general amnesty.
  

Getting involved in issues like these gives one the feeling of empowerment that has eluded those of us on the Right lately... And even though they might pass Amnesty anyway with their huge Congressional majorities, why should we go whimpering into the night? If they fully intend to do it "easily" then let us at least make them sweat a little.

No Congratulations From Us

We here at St. Blogustine believe in congratulating politicians for an honest (or reasonably honest), hard fought, campaign whether or not we agree with them politically. We also consider ourselves "good sports," good Christians, and truthful bloggers. Hypocrisy is not something Kevin or I indulge in to advance our cause. That is why we are offering absolutely NO congratulations to the Obama campaign for their "clear victory" over McCain-Palin.

It may sound like sour grapes to some. But when someone cheats in cards or steals money from the bank in Monopoly, we do not shake hands and say "good game." That, in our view, would be hypocritical at best and/or horribly naive. It would also cheapen the many posts we made about Obama's illegal fundraising, ACORN's illegal multiple voter registrations, the major TV network's supreme lack of objectivity, and general pro-Obama thuggery at polling stations and elsewhere. These were not exaggerations made in order to get our guy in power. They were documented, legitimate reports meant to both warn and enlighten voters about the choices before them. Although some questionable behavior during a campaign is to be expected by either side when there is so much at stake, this election saw the Press, Obama, and Obama supporters go beyond the pale and literally sell their souls in order to get their candidate into power. We will not even offer cleverly worded, backhanded (*snicker*) congratulations for that. Instead, we will continue to tell it like it is, as always, until someone shuts us down.

The Spectator: Is America Really Going To Do This? (Good Question)

My friend Paul sent me a link to a British online magazine called The Spectator with a piece written by Melanie Phillips: Is America Really Going To Do This? In it she makes a powerful summation of why the election of Obama would be a catastrophe not only for America, but also for Israel and the West. Here is an excerpt:

[...the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and – perhaps most crucially of all – the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.

Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.

Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.

McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America. The evil represented by Iran and the Islamic jihadists is apparently all America’s fault. ‘A lot of evil’s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil,’ he said. Last May, he dismissed Iran as a tiny place which posed no threat to the US -- before reversing himself the very next day when he said Iran was a great threat which had to be defeated. He has also said that Hezbollah and Hamas have ‘legitimate grievances’. Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are a) the existence of Israel b) its support by America c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world. Does Obama think these ‘grievances’ are legitimate?]

The article gets even more alarming as she continues...and you can read it HERE in its entirety.

What a catastrophe it would be if our country elected an inexperienced, extreme liberal simply based upon his non response to a mortgage crisis for which he and his Democrat cronies are largely responsible, only to realize the mistake after we are surrounded by enemies giving us the ultimatum of servitude and bondage vs. extermination. History (if anyone will be allowed to write it by then) will ask..."Where was the Media?"

From now until election day I will try to make the time to present other convincing arguments I find or that friends send my way.

Best Mark Steyn To Date...

Welcome back, Mark. You have been sorely missed.

An excerpt:

[McCain vs Obama is not the choice many of us would have liked in an ideal world. But then it’s not an “ideal world”, and the belief that it can be made so is one of the things that separates those who think Obama will “heal the planet” and those of us who support McCain faute de mieux. I agree with Thomas Sowell that an Obama-Pelosi supermajority will mark what he calls “a point of no return”. It would not be, as some naysayers scoff, “Jimmy Carter’s second term”, but something far more transformative. The new president would front the fourth great wave of liberal annexation — the first being FDR’s New Deal, the second LBJ’s Great Society, and the third the incremental but remorseless cultural advance when Reagan conservatives began winning victories at the ballot box and liberals turned their attention to the other levers of the society, from grade school up. The terrorist educator William Ayers, Obama’s patron in Chicago, is an exemplar of the last model: forty years ago, he was in favor of blowing up public buildings; then he figured out it was easier to get inside and undermine them from within.]

Enjoy the rest of the article HERE at NRO. Another excellent read before voting.

Fred Thompson's Election Address

This video should be seen by everyone who plans to vote this year.

The Howard Stern Experiment

I am NOT a Howard Stern fan...BUT this bit they did on 10-13 is well worth passing along. Here he interviews some Obama supporters and substitutes McCain's policies in place of Obama's and asks each subject what they think of both the candidates and the policy. Conservatives will find the results predictable, as Stern proves that Obama supporters really do NOT know their candidate. I wonder how many members of the Main Stream Media would fair as poorly.

John McCain: Fight

Okay, good content. Need a tad more energy. Those who are undecided this late in the race aren't looking for facts. No, people like that never let a year's worth of facts and issues get in the way of their voting decisions. Kind of makes one wonder why they bother to vote at all. What they are looking for is type of manner, presentation, and emotion. Not necessarily the candidate's emotion, but their own emotions as elicited by the candidate. And these are the people who usually decide close elections. Did I say "God help us all?"

McCain Defends "Joe The Plumber"

Great speech by McCain!

Live From New York! It's John McCain!

Senator John McCain at the Alfred E. Smith dinner knockin' them dead. Hey, we could all use a little levity before the home stretch. And it couldn't hurt his likability factor (or my blood pressure). Could this be the beginning of a new strategy?

(h/t: Gateway Pundit)

See McCain's ACORN Ad Here (no longer on You Tube)

Go directly to the source! McCain's website HERE. In fact whenever You Tube declares a McCain ad no longer available, just head over to johnmccain.com.

Obama Fumbled Name On Bracelet

Barack Hussein Obama, who claims to love our troops, couldn't remember the name on the bracelet he wore in the debate without looking down at his wrist. The fact that McCain knew readily the name on his own wrist, that the mother of the soldier personally gave him, sheds light on the priorities of both men. One is sincere about his devotion to our military, while the other is merely posing.

Newsbusters has a story the rest of the media is ignoring. Apparently the family of the soldier whose name Obama dons on his wrist bracelet has repeatedly asked Obama to remove it. Obama continues to show the family disrespect by ignoring their requests.

It's only about winning, in Obama's view.

(h/t to Paul and Kevin)

Enough Blame To Go Around...TO DEMOCRATS

I always learn a lot while watching Special Report with Brit Hume. In fact, if I had access to only one news source with or without commentary, I would go with Brit. Here, Fox News explains most of what happened that led up to the current crisis. There are other reasons, of course, as I have previously mentioned. But in 2005 the start of the crisis was clearly in view, alarms were sounded, and warnings not only went unheeded but denied and thwarted by DEMOCRATS. It's no wonder the MSM (main stream media) aka TOD (tool of Democrats) is so eager to spread the blame around. Allow me to correct:

First, a word from former President Bill Clinton. Click HERE for the ABC News interview in which Clinton not only defends McCain's decision to fly to Washington to assist in bailout talks, but also seems willing to spread blame to Democrats, while incorrectly putting himself on the side of those who tried to fix things (once a liar...).

Secondly, here in its entirety is an editorial from the New Hampshire Union Leader putting the blame for the mortgage meltdown on the proper people:

[One month from tomorrow, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., will be the keynote speaker at the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner. It is a coveted and high-profile role previously filled by such notables as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. The Democrats’ choice of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank is, therefore, very revealing.

The party announced Frank as the keynote speaker on Sept. 11 — three days after the U.S. government took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, costing taxpayers untold billions. That takeover probably could have been prevented had Frank not worked to thwart every attempt to limit the risks taken on by the two government-sponsored mortgage giants.

For 16 years reformers in Congress have tried to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the government-chartered companies from putting the housing market and the whole economy at risk. All that time, Frank was involved in efforts to block those attempts, and in the last eight years he was a leader of those efforts.

In 2002, shortly before accounting irregularities were exposed at both companies, Frank said, “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems,” The Wall Street Journal reported. After the Freddie Mac accounting scandal in 2003, Frank said, “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis.”

But there was a crisis, thanks in large part to Frank, Sen. Charles Schumer and others on the leash of these companies. In Congress, they made sure there was no additional oversight, no additional limit on executive behavior and compensation, and no further restraint on the growth of the companies’ mortgage-backed-securities portfolios, among other changes.

(All of these needed reforms, by the way, have been championed for years by Sen. John Sununu.)

In fact, Frank & Co. made matters worse by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on greater risk. They wanted more loans to people who might not qualify for traditional bank financing. And, as The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank “pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements — which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.”

Even now, after the government took the companies over (which Frank repeatedly said over the years was not a possibility), Frank opposes limits on the amount of money they can risk on mortgage backed securities — the one reform that might have done the most to prevent the current meltdown and probably would do the most to keep it from happening again.]

Ralph Peters Spotlights The Darkness Of Putin

Ralph Peters, a former intelligence officer and current national security adviser to Senator McCain, is, without a doubt, an expert on military and world affairs. He has written several columns and books about such subjects and has contributed a column about Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, to this morning's issue of USA Today. Here is an excerpt:

[Does this ruthless, focused leader have a weakness? Yes: his temper. Despite his icy demeanor, Putin's combustible. He takes rebuffs personally and can act impulsively — and destructively. Instead of lulling Europeans into an ever-greater dependence on Russian gas, he angrily ordered winter shut-offs to Ukraine and Georgia, alarming Western customers. Rather than concealing the Kremlin's cyber-attack capabilities, he unleashed them on tiny Estonia during a tiff over relocating a Soviet-era memorial — alerting NATO.

Putin's invasion of Georgia was also personal. In addition to exposing the West's impotence in the region, he meant to punish Georgia's defiant president. The lengths to which Putin was prepared to go in a personal vendetta should worry us all....

...Meanwhile, our next president will have to cope with this brilliant, dangerous man. That's going to require the experience and skills to exploit every element of our national power; to convince Europe that appeasement will only enlarge Putin's appetite; and to draw clear lines while avoiding drawn guns. Above all, our president will have to take Putin's measure accurately and not indulge in wishful thinking. Managing Putin's Russia could emerge as our No. 1 security challenge.]

Read the rest of this insightful article HERE.

This is all the more important to consider, not simply due to the Russian invasion of Georgia, but how Putin might react if The Ukraine joins NATO and slips from the Soviet grasp forever. Putin has been trying to subvert this development for years in a kind of tug-of-war with the West, at times possibly manifesting itself in a mysterious poisoning of a certain pro-NATO Ukrainian presidential candidate in the not too distant past. I would not leave the matter to someone like Barack Hussein Obama. As Peters says, the matter must be dealt with by someone with the right mindset and experience who can both stop Putin in his tracks AND keep us out of a nuclear holocaust.

photo borrowed from the wise guys.

Obama In Panic Mode ---> Calls Palin A PIG

Barack Hussein Obama is having trouble digesting the new poll numbers showing himself now trailing the unanointed pair, McCain-Palin. In fact he 's having so much trouble dealing with this that his rhetoric has sunk to name-calling.

Today in Lebanon, VA Obama said the following:

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to a laughing Ohio audience. "It's still a pig." "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

The Obama camp denies that the candidate's comments were sexist toward Gov. Sarah Palin or even that Obama was referring to Palin as a pig. But anyone who saw the Republican National Convention, and heard Palin's humorous ad lib in which she sums up the difference between a pit bull and a hockey-mom with one word: lipstick, can see that he was, in fact, referring directly to that. Just as anyone who knows McCain is old knows Obama was calling McCain an old fish.

The only question that remains, I suppose, is whether or not the "pig" reference is sexist.

The Obama camp released this statement from their senior advisor today:

“Enough is enough. The McCain campaign’s attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy – the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run."

I remember that comment by McCain about Hillary's health care plan, and remember I gave a low whistle and shook my head when I thought of the feminist fall-out that might occur because of it, right after I stopped laughing. I knew the lipstick-on-a-pig analogy was common in Washington, but I also knew that McCain had gotten away with a sexist analogy.

And perhaps this is to be expected from an old military guy who did hard time in Hanoi. But shouldn't more should be expected from a former University of Chicago professor and editor of the Harvard Law Review? The sexist nuance should be unmistakable to a liberal progressive professor.

Obama is in crack-up mode.

The latest Gallup Tracking Poll shows McCain-Palin holding a 5% lead over Obama-Biden.

"Fight WITH Me!"

Last night's lengthy acceptance speech by John McCain lasted the better part of an hour, so I will not post the whole thing here. Although it was rather long, it was very moving and reduced much of the audience to tears. It also had a higher Nielsen rating than Obama's styrofoam-pillar-speech.

The new CBS poll shows McCain and Obama tied at 42%, but was done by telephone from 9-1 to 9-3. This would suggest that most of the polling was done before the Palin speech, while all of it was done before McCain spoke. Things are getting interesting.

BTW, I am not endorsing Xtremerealitycheck.com

Fred Thompson At The 2008 RNC

This has been considered by many to be Fred Thompson's greatest speech. See above in three parts.

The RIGHT Choice Has Been Made

Barack Obama told this country that his VP pick would be an example of his decision making in how he would run our country. So he turned to a Washington DC insider, Joe Biden, who has more years in the Senate than John McCain. So much for hope and change.

Senator John McCain, who never proposed a bill to Congress which had ANY earmarks in his own long senate career, made his own decision making and governing intentions quite clear with his VP pick. He chose someone with executive experience who has shown a clear desire to reform anything with which she was associated, someone who has kept her promises in any office she held, and someone to whom her constituents have given consistently high approval ratings. He has made the RIGHT choice in Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska.

The selection of Governor Palin has, to no conservative's surprise, caused a bit of panic on the Left as they have fallen over each other trying to make McCain's decision look like a huge mistake. Unfortunately for the Left, their reasons given do more to put the spotlight on their own huge mistake in choosing Barack Hussein Obama for the top of their ticket. Here are some examples:

1) McCain can no longer use his best argument. ---The liberals think that because McCain chose someone for VP who is young and fresh, he can no longer accuse Obama of being too young and inexperienced. But Obama is at the top of his ticket and is not running for a legislative position greater than his. He is running for the nation's top executive position with NO executive experience whatsoever. McCain was at least leader of his own squadron during the Vietnam War. Palin, who is only running for VP, has executive experience as mayor and then governor of the largest state in the country, land-wise.

2) Alaska is corrupt. --So are a lot of other places. She has been a strong reformer in that state, obviously swimming against the tide. There has been much fruit for her labor, too. While Obama hails from Chicago, another corrupt locale, where his work as community organizer has not stopped the city from becoming once again mired in an intense level of violence not seen since the early 1970's.

3) No comparison to Hillary. ---Yes, and thank God for that. Sarah Palin, unlike Hillary, is a strong woman who did not use her husband's coattails to get herself elected governor. Palin is a tenacious fighter, an athlete who played in pain on the high school basketball team as point guard. She is a woman who earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda." Hillary has also earned several nicknames, none so flattering.

4) She has no base of support. ---Obama won his senate seat with 18 million votes while Palin won the governor's office with nearly 115,000 votes. What they fail to mention is that on the very day McCain announced his VP choice, he and Palin received over $7 million in contributions the first day. Part of that was $500 from me. So I consider myself, a non-Alaskan, part of her base of support.

5) She has never traveled outside the US. ---Would you believe someone on CNN (Crescent News Network) actually speculated this? First of all, she was born in Idaho and moved to Alaska where she grew up. Anyone with any knowledge of geography knows you have to leave the US in order to get to Alaska from the lower 48 states. Second, she has indeed traveled to Ireland once. And in 2007 she traveled to Germany and Kuwait. Looks like she made it to both places before Obama did, and SHE made it a point to visit the troops!

Isn't it funny that nearly every criticism of her is done with a comparison to Obama? Are they forgetting she is only running for VP? I tell you, every time they make a comparison between Palin and Obama it merely highlights Obama's weaknesses.

I look forward to seeing how she does on the campaign trail and in the debates.


For a host of sources see the Wikipedia page on Palin. Also used Dallas Morning News Opinion Blog.

The Tide Has Turned?

Zogby shows McCain over Obama 46% to 41% in their latest poll. However, Rasmussen still shows Obama in a statistical dead heat with McCain with a slight lead for Obama 47% to 46% over McCain when "leaners" are included in the polling results.

Next week will be very telling for the Obama campaign, as McCain with momentum will appear on Leno, and also announce during the same week his VP choice. Unless Obama pulls a rabbit out of the hat at the Democratic convention he may not enjoy much of a bounce from their "dog n' pony" show.

H/T American Power

Perot Then...Obama and MSM Now

Well, that didn't take long. I am speaking, of course, about the Obama camp and the MSM [namely Andrea Mitchell] coming to the defense of their anointed one, Barack Hussein Obama, in his hour of need after Obama lost the Saddleback debate in a rout, by accusing John McCain of cheating. Here is the transcript of the Mitchell accusation from NBC's Meet The Press:

[(Videotape)

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): Defeat it. Couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do it. I will get that done.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Andrea Mitchell, that's a pretty clear contrast.

MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, there was the crisp, immediate, forceful response by John McCain, clearly in a comfort zone because he was with his base. And Barack Obama, taking a risk in going there but seeing an opportunity. And a much more nuanced approach. The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that--what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. MITCHELL: He seemed so well prepared.]

What it brings to mind for me is the time Ross Perot and then-VP Al Gore had a debate on The Larry King show about NAFTA, and Gore ran rings around Perot to the point of embarrassment. Later, Perot accused Gore of cheating, too:

From the New York Times, September 16,1996--

[The Nafta Debate Accusing Gore Of Cheating

In November 1993, as the Clinton Administration was furiously working to win Congressional approval for the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Perot, an opponent, agreed to debate Vice President Al Gore on ''Larry King Live.''

The billionaire was on the defensive much of the time, and Mr. Gore goaded Mr. Perot into making disparaging and sarcastic remarks to him, such as: ''You're lying -- you're lying now,'' and, ''Please, let's have an unnatural event and try not to interrupt me.''

The nationally televised debate caused Mr. Perot's poll ratings to plummet. And news coverage at the time had many people saying that Mr. Perot's impetuous performance made it harder to view him as a potential President.

In Mr. Posner's new book, Mr. Perot is quoted as saying why he thinks Mr. Gore did well in the debate. He says Mr. Gore was wearing a tiny, secret earpiece in his left ear, through which White House aides might have fed him information and debating tips.

''Watch the debate, and you will see that thing twinkle,'' Mr. Perot is quoted as saying. ''Let's say you were being fed good answers, or good questions, or you name it. Don't boast publicly about it because that is cheating. See, the news should have been, 'They cheated.' '']

The truth of the matter in both instances is that both Al Gore (then) and John McCain (now) came to their debates much more prepared than their adversaries. Al Gore was very specific in his examples to back up his claims and had statistics at his fingertips. John McCain has ready answers to questions because he has done one townhall meeting after another and has decades of experience from which to draw. In both instances, both Perot and Obama were so full of HUBRIS that neither of them went to enough trouble to prepare properly for the events in question. Frankly, I am a little surprised that the Obama camp hasn't cried racism at this point. Case closed.

Leadership Now More Than Ever

The following is a recent column by former Senator and Presidential Candidate, Fred Thompson in its entirety (for reasons previously stated) in which he so ably sums up the world situation and dangers therein:


Dangerous Times In Georgia Demand Serious Leadership

by Fred Thompson

[My mind goes back to August 2002 in Tbilisi, as I visited Georgia with John McCain. I remember it feeling rather dark and secretive, with the former-Soviet Union’s heavy hand still making its presence felt. President Eduard Shevardnadze, formerly Soviet minister of foreign affairs, presented a friendlier face to the United States, but was beset by economic problems and corruption charges. At the time I did not fully appreciate the power of the democratic impulses that were just beginning to bubble up and would lead to the democratic Georgian government we now see threatened.

What has happened in Georgia since that time should not be surprising to anyone. Certainly Russia has tried to pretty itself up: it renamed the KGB and even gave its 21st century strongman Vladimir Putin a new title.

But for some time we’ve seen Russia sliding back to its authoritarian comfort zone. Murder, imprisonment and property confiscation are back in vogue for any perceived troublemaker. Former Soviet provinces have faced all forms of intimidation, from thuggish trade shakedowns to cyber attacks that shut down communications with the outside world. And whether a former satellite like Poland or a longtime western ally like Germany, Russia has made overt threats over plans to bring eastern European countries into NATO or to deploy a U.S.-provided missile defense system.

Russia is not above using anything at its disposal to make its point. It is a wealthy nation, built on a petro-economy that provides oil and gas to dependent European nations, which are petrified of having their energy supplies disrupted and are now in their own economic doldrums.

Given all this, Russia’s incursion into Georgia is a logical extension of Putin’s autocratic words and deeds and Russia’s regional ambitions, which must be leaving those nations closest to Russia’s borders – the Baltic states and Ukraine – nervous about a bitter and uneasy winter.

All the while, in Eastern Europe some of America’s staunchest friends are watching to see what the reaction of the U.S. and the west will be to Russia’s latest gambit. The U.S. and others use the word “unacceptable,” undoubtedly with the same effect that we get when we use it with the Iranians. So do we threaten Russia with denial of the membership in the World Trade Organization that it so covets? Do we expedite Georgia and the Ukraine’s entry into NATO? Do we cut off the tens of millions that we send into Russia to – hopefully – provide for security of nuclear materials? Everything should be on the table.

But the one thing we must not do is allow Russia to feel it can get away with, let alone feel rewarded for, this invasion of a sovereign democratic nation that has also loyally supported coalition efforts in Iraq.

While this crisis plays out we should also note that these events give evidence of a larger reality: the next American President is going to face an international landscape that is more difficult and treacherous than we have ever faced. By now most Americans appreciate the dangers of international terrorism and the fact that a small number of people can wreck unimaginable havoc upon our country and our people if they get their hands on the right kinds of weaponry. What is less understood is that some of the older, traditional kinds of threats are still very much with us, only heightened because of the increasing availability of nuclear weapons and other weapon technologies.

Who wasn’t impressed by the sea of Chinese performers, smiling and perfectly synchronized at the opening ceremony of the summer Olympics, demonstrating to the world their discipline and “organizational skills”? Or their ability to present to TV viewers beautiful fireworks displays that don’t really exist? What isn’t an illusion is that China is engaged in a rapid military buildup, the extent of which we do not know. With hundreds of missiles pointed toward Taiwan, experts say China is developing the capability to take Taiwan before the U. S. has the ability to respond.

Pakistan and India are still belligerently staring each other down over Kashmir. Both countries, of course, have nuclear arsenals, and Pakistan is of questionable stability with a segment of its intelligence community supportive of the Taliban.

The Iranian nuclear threat proceeds apace.

As Iraq stabilizes and our role there is reduced, there will continue to be a major debate within the United States as to how we deal with this increasingly dangerous world of new threats as well as old ones. Our military is stretched thin and worn down and it is clear to anyone who takes the time to study the matter that we cannot get by with the expenditure of 4% of our GDP on our military. The threats to our country are going to require a much more dedicated response. To what extent should we fill the role that we have filled pretty much since the end of World War II as the No. 1 friend of democracy and provider of stability in the world? How much in the way of resources are we going to be willing to devote to this endeavor?

The isolationist tendencies of the Democrats are not limited to trade agreements. Many are tired of the war in Iraq and will want to use any “peace dividend” on domestic purposes as future demands of our entitlement programs become more and more apparent.

Little help can be expected from our friends in Europe no matter how much it appears that their own interests are at stake. European countries spend even less of their GDP on their own defense than we do. They continue to trade with Iran, refusing to impose tough sanctions as Iran develops its nuclear capabilities. These are the weak reeds on which many would have us lean in our effort to fight global terrorism and the authoritarianism that threatens democratic countries.

So let’s recap: international terrorism; powerful nation states on a quest for hegemony, whether close to home or further afield and with a willingness to squelch freedom anytime the opportunity arises; less stable and no less dangerous countries with nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities; an alliance of democratic nations of questionable resolve and a debate at home over our future role in the world with a political party happy to create the impression of diminished resolve with little concern for the long term damage such an impression may cause.

Under these circumstances the old title “leader of the free world” takes on renewed meaning. He will have to guide the body politic at home toward resolution and in all likelihood engender resolve in a new alliance of democratic nations to deal with this broad array of challenges. In short it will require someone with experience and the courage to put his nation’s long term interest above his own.

I suppose it’s obvious where I’m going with this. This is no time to elect a president whose international experience is limited to speaking to adoring European crowds who want to see the United States retreat from the world … until they require our help in the next crisis that threatens them.

It has been instructive for the country to see the candidates’ reaction to the equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call. While he was vacationing in Hawaii, Barack Obama’s advisors scrambled into action and initially came up with the expected liberal bromides which equated the actions of Russia and Georgia and only ratcheted up the rhetoric when they began to actually understand what was happening.

It wasn’t that difficult for John McCain. For him Georgia was another little-known part of the world, whose leaders and history he is familiar with. And long before this Georgian crisis, he’s had the correct read on Russia, just as he’s had the right read on what we needed to do in Iraq

This crisis half a world away confirms what I’ve been saying for a while: This election cycle, the traffic in the world is very heavy …and dangerous; it’s no time to give a kid with barely a learner’s permit the keys to the car.]

In the previous version of this blog, I posted my own opinion about today's Russia and the threat it poses to the world. It is one area where I think President Bush has left us dry. Russia has increased its influence through old satellites like Cuba, renewed its influence in Central America (Noriega returned to lead Nicaragua), and picked up new friends (Venezuela and Iran). It's very much like the Cold War in a way, except now China is leaning toward their old enemy, Russia, and Europe could be held hostage by a natural gas pipeline coming from the East on which they have grown very dependent. Much work is needed to be done by someone in the know. That would be McCain.

Fred pic courtesy of Creative Commons.
Fred column appeared originally in Townhall.com