After a very competitive GOP primary battle Mitt Romney is now the presumptive Republican nominee. Newt Gingrich is expected to formally bow out next Wednesday and his recent main rival Rick Santorum dropped out a few weeks ago. Mr. Romney however would be wise to tap or reinforce some of the ideas from his nominee rivals. They would also be wise to circle around and support Mr. Romney if they would like to beat President Obama in November. They all brought something substantive to the table that could benefit Mr. Romney’s campaign and the country.

It has been a very contentious primary but it has prepared Mr. Romney to be an even better candidate to take on Pres. Obama. Many pundits wanted everyone to think the GOP field was weak and often framed the narrative as if none of these candidates could unseat President Obama. However, based on President Obama’s record (which he can’t honestly defend) and where his policies are taking America, the conversation should have been about how much the President could lose by to any of these candidates.

Just as in the primary there is no doubt Mr. Romney’s personal wealth will used by the Obama campaign to discredit him as being out of touch. Mr. Romney instead should embrace and acknowledge his success, speak even more about it and express his desire to see more Americans succeed like he did. He will need to emphasize that while President Obama seeks to redistribute wealth and divide America with class envy, a President Romney would seek to promote conditions that encourage wealth creation for everyone who also aspires to succeed.

Rick Santorum gained a lot of momentum because of his appeal to voters in traditionally manufacturing and blue-collar states. Mr. Romney has an opportunity to appeal to these same voters but again he needs to shake the stigma attached to him by critics that his wealth prevents him from doing so.  He needs to outline how his tax or regulatory policies to create a more business friendly job growth environment will benefit these voters. His quest to make American manufacturing more competitive by making America more attractive place for investment, would help the middle class more than what President Obama purports to do.

It will be important for Mr. Romney to outline how President Obama’s loyalty to special interest groups such as unions and environmentalists have hurt the middle class. He should not be shy to speak of the symbiotic relationship President Obama and Democrats have had with unions who funnel large contributions derived from mandatory dues collected from workers who might not even support the Democratic party’s agenda. The President sided with the National Labor Relation Board when they sought to block Boeing from building a factory in the right for work state of South Carolina which delayed much needed jobs. The President also sided with unions who fought against school vouchers that primarily gave low income and minority children a better choice of schools.

President Obama is trying to attract the youth vote but the ‘hope and change mantra’ that he successfully used last time did not materialize. Mr. Romney has an opportunity here to grab the youth vote but he could also learn from his current nominee rival Ron Paul who has not dropped out of the race. Even though Ron Paul is the oldest of the GOP pack seeking the nomination he has successfully grabbed the attention and strong loyalty of young voters. Ron Paul has been successful with young people because he actively campaigned for their support, and outlined the consequences to their generation of ballooning debt and spending by President Obama and other liberals. More has been added to the national debt in three years under President Obama than in 8yrs under President Bush. It is not an under statement to say President Obama has bartered the future of the current youth population by kicking the ‘debt crisis can’ down the road to attain his political and ideological objectives of today. This should be key in any debt crisis conversation.

Mitt Romney also needs to spend more time speaking with young voters especially as more of them are having difficulty finding jobs. He also needs to present a path of optimism though his policies so they have something to aspire to. Otherwise, the Occupy Movement will gladly sow the resentment and hate for success as more young people become frustrated and out of work. This would be a bad recipe for the chaos that radical liberals often seek to spark in order to promote greater dependence on government.

Rick Perry and Ron Paul often spoke about the influence of the Federal Reserve and its role in devaluing the US dollar and keeping interest rates too low. While most of the economic debate has been about fiscal policies such as tax rates very little has been discussed about the role of monetary policies of the Obama Administration and the Fed. Mitt Romney can speak more about how a lower value dollar has reduced the purchasing power of Americans because it helps to increase the costs of everything we buy including food and oil.  Hopefully he will continue to expand the conversation of how a sound monetary policy will encourage savings and investment to help the economy and boost retirement plans or nest eggs. Just as Mr. Romney got involved in the discussion of Paul Ryan’s budget to reform entitlements, he needs to get into the discussion about two versions of a bill before Congress (The Sound Dollar Act) to reform the Federal Reserve System. See: Congress Finally Takes on the Fed by George Melloan in the Wall Street Journal.

One of the many points Newt Gingrich has brought up and should be followed up by Mitt Romney is reform of the Food and Drug Administration. This agency is responsible for approving new medicines and techniques but has been using 20th century methods to vet 21st century medical technologies. A reform of this agency would speed new medical innovations to the market by American companies as we face more competition from abroad where there are fewer barriers. It would also enhance competition make drugs and medical devices less expensive.

As Americans face higher prices for gasoline at the pump we have become more vulnerable to higher prices due to President Obama’s energy policies. Mitt Romney can galvanize support from Governors such as Rick Perry who has successfully led a state with a real ‘all of the above strategy’ without picking winners and losers like President Obama has done. The EPA under President Obama has been more of an activist agency that suppresses oil, natural gas and coal energy production to favor alternatives that are not viable to serve all our energy needs. When President Obama could not get his Cap and Trade bill through Democrat led Congress he chose to sidestep the votes of the elected members of Congress and allow the unelected bureaucrats in the EPA to restrict operation and opening of new coal plants. Mitt Romney needs to point out that American ingenuity has come along way in finding environmentally sound ways of extracting and using traditional sources of energy which we will depend on for a long time. The ability to do this has been greatly undermined by liberals such as President Obama. Other countries, which we compete with, are not holding back in retrieving their sources of energy.

Both Governor Perry and Newt Gingrich want to replace the EPA with environmental agencies run by each state which can better access local environmental needs and challenges. Texas governor Rick Perry during the campaign expressed strong support for more state rights to solve issues and to be laboratories of innovation especially for public policies. This is preferred to the expanding of the federal government in Washington DC which likes to hand down ‘one size fits all’ for many policies onto states which they do not live in. Texas has produced more jobs in the last ten years that the other 49 states combined. This has been the envy of many liberal states such as California and is a testament of how states as laboratories of innovation can prove what works and what does not.

Mitt Romney just received the endorsement of Mr. Perry, a former archrival during nomination process. Mitt Romney can point to governors like Rick Perry and a number of other GOP governors to show how conservative policies are leading the way in promoting jobs and economic growth. Countries such as Canada, Australia, Germany and others who use similar policies or reforms are fairing better than countries using the policies President Obama pursues. This could be pivotal in the current debate where President Obama wants Americans think that growth and revenue to reduce deficits will come from higher taxes, government spending and regulations.  While President Obama dwells on these fantasies and ideologies, GOP governors have proven him wrong with what has really worked to better the interests of most Americans. See: A 50-State Tax Lesson for the President by Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore.

Mitt Romney got this far because of running a organized and disciplined campaign. His executive experience is an asset to get things done that Americans want.  He will have to be himself and exemplify the competence of leadership which he is capable of. Conservatives cannot expect Mitt Romney to have the charisma of Herman Cain, the energy  of Rick Santorm, or the assertiveness of Newt Gingrich. However, it will a necessary asset to have more tenacity to match that of the powerful liberal machine which is determined do anything to win. Mitt Romney will have to show Americans the distinctive two paths we can chose and justify why conservative principles are the only way back to a path of prosperity. It is not about President Obama’s interests, it is about us, we the people, who need a leader who protects our liberties not minimizes them.

One of the most memorable and successful campaign slogans in a Presidential election has been ‘It’s the Economy Stupid’. In 1992 it was a variation of a phrase coined by campaign strategist James Carville of then presidential candidate Bill Clinton. It worked to defeat the incumbent President George H. Bush by portraying him as not adequately addressing the economy. 

For the 2012 presidential election the key issue should be ‘Its Economic Freedom Stupid’. This encompasses more than only the economy and is not just a political slogan for a candidate.  It is an issue that has to be addressed to ensure that America wins and returns to the path of prosperity rather than continue in decline for the 21^st century.

Economic freedom involves the free movement of capital, labor and resources to areas where they promote greater economic prosperity. Economic freedom- empowers individuals to be productive, protects property rights, expands freedom to trade internationally, minimizes government regulation of business, supports sound money and relatively low taxes, enforces the rule of law, encourages entrepreneurship but allows freedom to fail and fosters voluntary exchange. The American Idea of liberty derived from our creator and the economic freedom it nurtures gave birth to the American Dream. These principles have motivated individual upward mobility, inventions and attracted ambitious talent from all over the world to America.

However, we cannot maintain our leadership in the world by having leaders who are complacent in the decline of America as we have now. Despite the ‘blame someone else’ rhetoric from President Obama his record as President has diminished America’s standing in economic freedom. His economic and other policies such as Obamacare Bill no matter how they are spun will continue to undermine economic freedom. This becomes more evident as designed, as the details will kick in at the politically convenient time after the 2012 election. The recent controversial contraception mandate is only the tip of what is to come in 2013.

In 2000 the U.S was ranked 3^rd in the world behind only Hong Kong and Singapore in the Index of Economic Freedom which is published annually by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. In the latest 2012 publication released last month by Heritage and WSJ, the U.S has further declined and now we are tenth behind countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland and Mauritius. While most of the attention is on the unemployment rate, the Index of Economic Freedom is an important analysis about the future of America. It has received little attention in the media but should be in the conversation during the election about which path we should choose.

Last year, the U.S was ranked ninth. It is the fourth consecutive year that the U.S has declined on the index. Countries such as the U.S and Europe that historically led the world in economic freedom now led the global decline due to excessive government regulation and stimulus spending. Edwin Feulner president of the Heritage Foundation and co-editor of the 2012 Index of Economic Freedom wrote in the Wall Street Journal explaining the new publication: A Step Backward for Economic Freedom in 2012.

The good news from this publication is that economic freedom has continued to increase in Asia and Africa.  Mr. Feulner notes in the WSJ article the vital linkage between advancing economic freedom and eradicating poverty. This observation complements the fact that economic freedom has successfully increased human prosperity, extended life spans and improving quality of life in exponential ways in the U.S and throughout the world in the last 200 years. In 1800, 85% of everyone alive lived on less than $1 per day (measured in 2000 dollars). Today only 17% do.

In the last 30 yrs. as more countries were transitioning to more free economies the global surge in growth spread wealth from rich to poor countries and created greater equality in global markets. This was NOT because governments took measures to guarantee these end results through redistribution of wealth, instead the presence of less government made way for economic freedom that increased the potential of equal opportunity for individuals to succeed. President Obama would like Americans to think the opposite will work to help the U.S economy grow. There is a correlation during that period with the growth of these countries. They either distanced themselves from a socialist style government or former communist countries moved towards free market policies.

During that time developing countries grew two to three more times than developed countries. The share of world GDP held by emerging markets increased to 22% from 13% as the U.S share remained at about 26%. The global middle class increased by 600 million-800 million people in China, India, Brazil and other developing countries.

Conversely, a decline in economic freedom will lead to a lower standard of living and slow growth in developed countries like the U.S and some in Europe. Last month 9 countries in the European Union mired in debt and slow growth lost their triple- A rating from Standard and Poor’s. The decline of Economic Freedom in America also reversed a little noticed trend from 1980 to 2007-the middle class was shrinking not because it was getting poorer but rather because it was getting richer. Per capita income increased by 65% and household income went up substantially in all income categories. During that period the percentage of households making $35,000 remained the same while those making $105,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars more than doubled to 24% from 11%. President Obama often repeats the line that the ‘rich are getting richer’ to justify higher taxes, however at the time there was an increasing number of ‘rich people’ earning more, the rest of the population was also experiencing an increase in income in that period but that trend …ended in 2007. President Obama believes he guarantee an increase in income for the middle class and poor by controlling or redistributing the income and growth of the so-called ‘rich’. It is oblivious to him that the same factors that promote economic freedom also cause the increase of income for everyone and results in an increase in tax revenue. There will not be enough ‘rich’ to tax to suit his liberal spending appetite. See Millionaires Go Missing.

The decline in economic freedom is normally synonymous with the growth of government.  Expansion of government hinders the mobility and vitality of capital as it seeks more control of them through taxes and regulations. If the U.S continues its path away from limited government and economic freedom, there will be a transition to a more limited people and limited potential as a nation. This undermines the first words in the preamble of the Constitution ‘We the People’

The transition to a bigger government and away from a limited government has been the case under President Obama. He wants Americans to think that the economy would be better if the government could increase taxes on the rich and have more control on the mobility of capital. This has never worked to increase revenue long term. Lower tax rates have proven to broaden the tax base because it expands economic freedom, investment and growth. The question that needs to be constantly asked of Mr. Obama is ‘Why should the government take more of other peoples’ money when government has been so inept in managing or ‘investing’ what it already takes?

Mr. Obama likes to say that his policies would work if the GOP did not obstruct them, however when he came to office his Democrat Party had leadership of both the House and Senate. He was able to unleash a barrage of Keynesian high tax and spend policies mainly through the stimulus package and expansion of government regulations including his signature Health Care bill. What did America get for it? A change towards the same path of countries where these high tax and spend policies have failed such as in Europe and Japan and created unsustainable debt.

When Mr. Obama became President there were three trade treaties waiting for him to send to Congress. These were free trade treaties with Panama, Columbia and South Korea, which would enlarge the market for American made goods and create jobs. For over 2yrs. he blamed Congress for not passing them even though the passage could only occur if he sent them over to be passed. In the meantime Canada and other countries passed trade deals with the three countries.

More recently, President Obama blocked the Keystone pipeline deal with Canada that would not almost instantly create at least 20,000 American jobs but would make us less reliant on Mid-East oil. This despite studies for over three years by his State Department that revealed that there would be little or no impact to the environment and supported by the President’s own Jobs Council. The Canadian Prime Minister since that has visited China to make deals on selling oil via a pipeline that would instead go to the Pacific coast of Canada. China is also making deals with Brazil to buy their oil, some of which has been extracted due to loans to that country by the Obama administration. Brazil has increased their oil production by 186% in the last 20yrs. This while his policies deters the expansion of oil drilling in the U.S on federal lands. The President’s regulatory bias against fossil fuel extraction in the U.S has made us less competitive in a world when other countries are trying to extract theirs.

Our energy industry is probably the most affected by less economic freedom. It is also one of the highest taxed and revenue generating industries. This while favorite industries of liberals such as for alternate energy often pays little or no taxes and is largely subsidized by taxpayers. Again government policies suppress economic freedom and the free market in the effort to guarantee outcomes with other peoples’ money. President Obama has tried to fulfill the liberal ideology by under minding fossil fuel exploration and use in order to ‘fix’ the market to be more reliant on alternative fuels.  This has been a major assault on the free market and personal choice.  The President had warned that under his policies ‘energy prices would necessarily go up’ to deter fossil fuel use. This shows no regard of how the economy would be affected and the cost of living for Americans. His Energy Secretary Steven Chu also said he “would like to see energy prices similar to those in Europe”.

 Coal is still a major source of electricity in the U.S, but the administration has implemented policies that force coal plants to close despite new technologies that make it cleaner than before. This has put into question the reliability of the national grid, because wind and solar energy cannot suffice for lost output due to less coal power.  This while the administration wants more people to drive subsidized and limited use expensive electric cars. Ironically these cars are often twice the cost of market favored, more widely available and practical fuel-efficient cars driven by mainstream Americans.  The drivers of the subsidized electric cars are mostly of upper income. The administration through the EPA has tried to create a market for these cars with CAFE standards and mandates.

By far most of the increases in oil, gas and coal production in the last few years have been on private lands and not due to Obama policies as he touted in his SOTU address. See: 10 Dubious Claims From Obama’s State of The Union.The oil and gas exploration boom in North Dakota has mainly been on private lands. That state has one of the lowest unemployment rates and a growing economy.

One of the greatest ways expansion of government under President Obama has constrained economic freedom has been through the appointments of officials or Czars with vast powers that affect the economy with little or no accountability to elected members of Congress and to American taxpayers. These include appointees to the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB), the EPA, and more recently the controversial and possibly illegal appointment of Richard Cordray as the first chief of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The conversation about this last appointment missed the main reason he was not confirmed with Republican support. The Republicans had written the President last May to express concern that this position should have greater accountability and a budget overseen by elected officials. The President did not respond but blamed the Republicans for blocking his appointment and hindering protection of consumers. This is just one example of how limited government principles under President Obama has been ignored as to cater to his liberal ideology of a bigger government. It also illustrates one reason why the expansion of economic freedom under this President is unlikely. Through his regulations and appointees he has enacted rules that may not be based on their viability or to facilitate economic growth but satisfy the ideological fantasy of a few in government and those that fund their campaigns such as labor unions and special interests. Picking winners and losers with this philosophy significantly inhibits the potential of economic freedom and feeds crony capitalism that the President pretends he fights against. See: A Fairness Quiz for the President.

Probably the greatest threat to economic freedom in America will come in 2013 as taxes on investment and dividends are set to increase to help pay for Obamacare while more mandates from that legislation comes into effect. In addition the Bush tax cuts are set to expire which will affect many small businesses and thus job creation. The U.S has already the highest corporate taxes in the world at 39.2%. The average corporate tax rate in the 15 highest industrialized countries is 26%. To be more globally competitive some conservatives and GOP candidates have proposed tax reform with a low flat tax while eliminating most deductions and corporate loopholes. This has been proven in other countries such as Hong Kong (Ranked number #1 on the Index of Economic Freedom) to be fairer and increase overall revenue while stimulating growth and jobs.

States have proven to be experiments of economic policies. There is no better proof that lower taxed states with lower and predictable regulations but more economic freedom such as Texas and Indiana are doing better than high taxed and regulated states like California and New York. See: ‘The Heartland Tax Rebellion’- WSJ that compares high and low tax states.

According to the Small Business Administration the total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually, which is almost twice as much as all individual income taxes collected in 2010. To improve economic freedom in the U.S, there is a need for reforms with cost-benefit analysis of regulations to reduce those that are more of a burden. Instead more are added every year.

In the 21^st century America will not only have to compete with traditional major industrialized countries but also have to compete with increasingly economically free and growing economies such as BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and possibly CIVET countries (Columbia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa) and many more. Not only in trade and industry will America have to compete, but also for scarce resources such as energy and human skills such as engineering, science and entrepreneurial investors who often become pioneers.

America has been the ‘brain drain’ magnet for talent when it was by far the most economically free destination with opportunities for ambitious talent. Now we have competition and are less attractive for those talents. This point highlights why there needs to be education and immigration reform to attract those with advanced degrees and allow those trained here at universities in science and engineering to stay. Steve Jobs once told Mr. Obama that Apple employs 700,000 factory workers in China because it can’t find 30,000 engineers in the U.S that it needs on site at it’s plant. See Steve Job’s Advise to Obama, (which he did not take).

These challenges amplify the reasons why we need a new president who can lead on promoting economic freedom. America needs a better business climate where private enterprises strive, create jobs and flourish.  Restoring strong economic freedom allows the competitive environment where capital such as investment or human and natural recourses from other countries gravitate to America to maximize prosperity and jobs. Simply put, leading on economic freedom is conducive to economic growth, and empowers the upward mobility and standard of living of individuals especially the middle class and the poor. It is a sharp contrast to President Obama’s vision of big government that seeks to redistribute wealth through class warfare, higher taxes and sewing resentment of success.

In the recent interview with Matt Lauer President Obama said, “ I deserve a second term but we’re not done”. Well that’s the problem, if this President gets a second term we would have gone further as a country as being ‘done’.

Ironically, the President’s own arrogance of self-pity words in the ‘reasoning’ behind why he thinks he deserves second term exemplifies why he should not get one. He constantly uses blame of others to abdicate accountability of actually leading.

Again he blames Congress, “What’s frustrated people is that I’ve not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008”. Oh really Mr. President? When Mr. Obama came to office his Democrat Party led both the House and the Senate. They enabled him to pass his signature Stimulus and Obamacare Bills, a restructuring of Wall Street without reforming ‘too big to fail’, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (key causes of the recession ran by key donors to Pres. Obama), vast new regulations impeding industries and job creators, multiple housing remedies backed by taxpayers that have failed, plus other anti-growth legislations.

What did America get? Policies that have prolonged this recession and put America in decline, policies like the ones that have bankrupted other countries, a quadrupling of the deficit and a national debt which grew more in 3yrs (about $5 trillion) under President Obama than it did under President G.W Bush in 8yrs.  Mr. Obama had decried that amount added under Pres. Bush as ‘unpatriotic’ when he was a presidential candidate in 2008.

The escalated trajectory of our debt and slow growth under President Obama and the Democrat led (both sides) of Congress put America on a path to lose our triple ‘A’ rating for the first time in history. When the Republicans took over the House, they passed the only Bill (Cut, Cap, and Balance) and passed a budget that S&P rating agency said would avert that downgrade and reverse that trajectory of decline. The Senate still led by Democrats did not even take up the Bill for a vote. Where was the President’s leadership to get his party to take a vote on plan to avert the downgrade? Matt Laurer should have asked him that.

The President on his perpetual campaign and blame Congress has not even once challenged the ‘do nothing’ Democrats that lead the Senate for not passing a budget in over 1000 days and still have no intention of passing one. This has also escaped the scrutiny of the media.

The same ‘do nothing’ Senate leadership has not taken up any of the over 15 jobs Bills passed by the Republican led House. The President in trying to divert attention from his own deficiencies have not led and distinguish between the two sides of Congress and which one is really ‘doing nothing’. 

 After Mr. Lauer mentioned that some voters are “disappointed in you, that you aren’t the transformative figure that they hoped you would be”, Mr. Obama actually tried to even blame the Founding Fathers. He replied, “ Well, you know, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes. But what we have been able to do is move in the right direction”.

Yes the Founders designed a system of ‘limited government’ and checks and balances of power to be accountable to the people. The people are intended to be the ultimate decision makers of the direction they chose to take.  The goal of liberty was to prevent a few in government to have unrestrained power of enacting the change that only they perceive to ‘benefit’ the majority. The Founders understood that ‘men’ are fallible, and so not absolutely trustworthy and exempt from liability to error, thus reinforcing the concept of limited government. It was people like President Obama the Founders had in mind and that is why those documents are still relevant today.

Therefore the change Mr. Obama thinks every American should have does not supersede the freedom of the people to chose and think for them selves. The office of President is one to serve the will and preserve the freedom of the people, uphold the Constitution, and not to absolutely impose the personal will of the office holder. As such, Mr. Obama definition of moving in the right direction could be countering what the people want as the right direction. Most Americans think the country is moving in the wrong direction.

The ‘Hope and Change’ mantra that propelled Mr. Obama to the Presidency is not the type most Americans were hoping for as we now face debt, doubt, decline and division. It is not a surprise that Pres. Obama has not dusted off those signs to use them again.

In the same interview Pres. Obama said, “ One of the things about being President is you get better as time goes on”. As current Vice President Joe Biden said to then Senator Obama when they were competing in the 2008 primary for the Democratic nomination, “ The Presidency is no position for on the job experience”. Mr. Biden was right then, and still is, at least in this one case. The record of Pres. Obama’s Presidency not only highlights what happens when someone is elected who never ran anything before or had significant legislative experience. It also highlights what happens when this is combined with a determined transformation via ideological fantasies towards a direction that have already failed in other countries.

So when Pres. Obama says, “I deserve a second term but we’re not done”, can we really afford another term to see what a possibly irreversible ‘done’ means?

Gov. Rick Perry’s run for president has lost a lot of steam due to his early debate performances. However, the dark shadow cast by these performances on Gov. Perry’s ability to win the GOP nomination and un- seat President Obama cannot negate certain facts. Gov. Perry’s record as an accomplished governor and pro growth executive makes him highly qualified to be a very good president, and is worth a second look.  It is a record that only matters to win the GOP nomination and presidency if he can communicate it and justify his qualifications to voters. It is also a record Mr. Obama could only dream of during his first on the job executive training experience which has been as President of the United States.

Currently Gov. Perry’s candidacy is swirling around the drain as he is at the bottom of polls going into the upcoming primaries. But, there is an obvious strategy Mr. Perry could use to earn a second look and buoy his candidacy back to top of the pack.

Gov. Perry often speaks about the policies in Texas he has implemented that has led to record job and economic growth in that state. However, the bold strategy and key point Gov. Perry should  emphasize in his campaign is that his success is due to leading on the ‘American Idea’ and economic freedom, not a Texan economic model. The ‘American Idea’ includes limited government, individual liberty derived from our creator, equality of opportunity to enhance and promote merit based upward mobility, and traditional American values. Economic freedom involves the free movement of capital and labor and resources to areas where they promote greater economic prosperity.

The unique combination of the ‘American Idea’ and economic freedom conceived the American Dream. This is the reason why no other country has ‘dream’ following their name. It is also the reason why we need a President who has proven he can lead to make sure it will survives.

Gov. Perry’s window of opportunity to re-emerge as a front-runner is getting narrower as he heads into crucial primaries. His current low ratings in the polls have led to less attention to his ideas by the media. They have assumed that he has lost his chance of becoming the GOP nominee. However, Gov. Perry has done well in recent debates and very well in the last night Mike Huckabee’s hosted forum in South Carolina. He also has some very good campaign videos touting his record and character. If he keeps up a good debating trend, he could get more attention as being a serious candidate and gain credibility as being electable in the general election.

By campaigning on his record to promote ‘Restoring the American Idea and Economic Freedom’ to make America great again, Gov. Perry could inspire much needed optimism at a time when most Americans believe we are on a decline as a country. It could also crucially make use of the small window Mr. Perry has left to complement and boost his other creative proposals: Cut, Balance and Grow, his energy plan Energizing American Jobs and Security, and his plan to Overhaul Washington. President Obama partly won in 2008 based on the optimism of the ‘hope and change’ mantra which have not only failed to give hope but has changed America in the direction of a declining and broke European socialist style state.

Rick Perry is able to not only promise to be a leader in delivering economic prosperity, he has done it, and will do it for America. Many can promise such results but few have the exceptional record of doing it like Rick Perry. His challenge will be to distinguish himself from his fellow GOP candidates in that regard. For this Gov. Perry will have to be more effective in educating voters about his experience and record of applying the virtues of the ‘American Idea’ that fostered economic freedom and growth. It will be crucial to re-acquaint and justify why these virtues should resonate with every voter and why they are vital in moving America forward in a very competitive 21^st century.

Such a strategy could prove to be a huge benefit to the multi-tiered stages of this race. The first tier would be toward winning the Republican nomination by energizing the conservative and Tea Party base. The second tier would be winning the presidency by swaying independents and some voters normally associated with the Democrat base.

Even though there are other former governors in this race touting their record in leadership, Mr. Perry as governor of Texas for the last 11 years is the only candidate who has actually been leading his state through the great recession. In the last 10yrs more jobs have been created in Texas than the other 49 states combined. Since June 2009 almost 40% of the jobs created in America has been in Texas. Texas faired better than most other states during the recession and the housing crisis. As opposed to liberal policies that over the last 20 years forced banks to increase the number of sub-prime mortgages in the rest of the country, Texas faired better due to a state rule since 1998. It limited mortgage borrowing to 80% of, appraised value of the home and reduced overleveraging. It also is among the few states that is home to more jobs than when the recession started in December 2007. For seven years running CEOs polled by Chief Executive magazine have rated Texas first in business development and job growth. Texas boasts 58 Fortune 500 companies, which is more than any other state. These are clear examples of economic freedom at work.

Texan economic output exceeds Mexico’s and Australia’s and rivals India. It has also led exports among all 50 states. Texas has been a magnate for companies and people from other states. So much so that last year California’s Democratic lieutenant governor Gavin Newsom flew to Austin with a delegation to ask Perry now he lures companies from California. What they found was a state with a fair and predictable regulatory climate that promotes investment growth and thus jobs. Capital whether as human or investment is highly mobile and migrates to places like Texas where the opportunities are larger and the burdens are lower. It also has a fiscally responsible and small government led by Rick Perry.

Texas also has a legal system that does not allow for over-suing. Gov. Perry tort reforms and medical-litigation rules have caused malpractice-insurance rates to fall and thus the costs of healthcare have fallen. Since that over 20,000 doctors have moved to Texas. Compared to New York which since 2003 has seen medical liability rates increased by more than 60%; in Texas they have dropped by 54%. During that time over 1,200 physicians have moved from New York to Texas. Texans have more than 2 million added patients visits a year since the reforms. It should also be noted that tort reform if implemented in any national healthcare reform bill would substantially help to reduce overall health care costs and encourage more availability of doctors. Tort reform was not part of Obama-Care.

The California delegation might also have noticed that Texas has neither personal nor capital gains tax and in 2010 Gov. Perry proposed a constitutional amendment to the Texas constitution to require two thirds super majority to legislate tax hikes. The low tax or elimination of some others in Texas is another reason capital has flowed into that state to increase investment and jobs which has in turn increased the tax base and increased tax revenue.

In addition, Texas is a Right to Work state, which gives workers the right to join a union, or not. This makes Texas competitive in attracting companies from other states whose growth flexibility and competitiveness is otherwise hampered by heavy union requirements and rules. Union power in those states often feeds off the dues they force from workers, which are funneled to politicians as donations who in turn create the regulatory burdens on companies to please the unions. This symbiotic relationship and cycle between politicians and unions often hinders the companies’ freedom to grow and stunts job creation potential, hence many go to Texas where they can avoid that hindrance.

California the grand experiment of liberal big government, high tax and excessive regulatory policies meanwhile struggles with high budget deficits and low growth. If high taxes and regulations were the key to increased revenue or growth, California and other high tax states would be booming. They are not because they have abandoned the elements of the ‘American Idea’ such as economic freedom and limited government. The contrast between California and Texas in economic growth further distinguishes the general direction Mr. Perry would lead America versus the path President Obama and liberal democrats are taking us.

The Obama administration has veered from these ideals of the American Idea and economic freedom. Obamanomics is making America more like California and less like the outcomes in Texas with more government, extremely powerful unions, more central planning and higher taxes. America is heading towards the fate of failed nation states like Greece rather than countries that are embracing more economic freedom such as Canada and former socialist countries. See my article: ‘What Obama can Learn From Canada-Effective Economic Policies not Tax Hikes.’

There is a dire need for someone with the ‘will do’ attitude like Rick Perry to lead America back to prosperity, because, sometimes a promise of a ‘can do attitude’ just won’t cut it. Economic freedom involves more than the free movement of capital and labor and resources to areas where they promote greater economic prosperity. It empowers individuals to be productive, protects property rights, expands freedom to trade internationally, minimizes government regulation of business, supports sound money and relatively low taxes, enforces the rule of law, encourages entrepreneurship, allows freedom to fail and fosters voluntary exchange. The American Idea of liberty and the economic freedom it nurtures not only gave birth to the American Dream, this concept has motivated individual upward mobility, inventions and attracted ambitious talent from all over the world to America. However, we cannot maintain our leadership in the world by having leaders who are complacent in the decline of America like we have now.

In 2000 the U.S was ranked 3^rd in the world behind only Hong Kong and Singapore in the Index of Economic Freedom which is published annually by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. In the latest 2012 publication released last Thursday by Heritage, the U.S has further declined and now we are tenth behind countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland and Mauritius. Last year, the U.S was ranked ninth. It is the fourth consecutive year that the U.S has declined on the index. Countries such as the U.S and Europe that historically led the world in economic freedom now led the global decline due to excessive government regulation and stimulus spending. Edwin Feulner president of the Heritage Foundation and co-editor of the 2012 Index of Economic Freedom wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday explaining the new publication: A Step Backward for Economic Freedom in 2012.

The good news from this publication is that economic freedom has continued to increase in Asia and Africa.  Mr. Feulner notes in the WSJ article the vital linkage between advancing economic freedom and eradicating poverty. Conversely, a decline in economic freedom will lead to a lower standard of living and slow growth in a country like the U.S. Un related to this report, 9 countries in the European Union lost their triple- A rating from Standard and Poor’s a few days ago.

The decline in economic freedom is normally synonymous with the growth of government because its expansion hinders the mobility and vitality of capital. If the U.S continues its path away from limited government and economic freedom, there will be a transition to a more limited people and limited potential as a nation.

The need to reverse this trend reinforces the need for someone like Rick Perry to be president. He understands and has proven to lead on the concept of limited government and economic freedom to deliver the prosperity they provide.

In the 21^st century America will have to compete with more economically free and growing economies such as BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and possibly CIVET countries (Columbia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa) and many more. Not only in trade and industry will America have to compete, but also for scarce recourses such as energy and human skills such as engineering, science and entrepreneurial investors who often become pioneers.

This challenge highlights another reason why Mr. Perry is highly qualified among the field of candidates to be president. He has succeeded in both the role as a leader of limited government of a large state, and as a leader who has created the climate where private enterprise strive, create jobs and flourish. In that role he also fostered the competitive environment where capital such as investment or human and natural recourses from other states and countries gravitate to maximize prosperity. Simply put, leading on the American Idea and economic freedom is conducive to economic growth, and empowers the upward mobility and standard of living of individuals especially the middle class and the poor. It is a sharp contrast to President Obama’s vision of big government that seeks to redistribute wealth through class warfare, higher taxes and sewing resentment of success.

At a time when Federal spending is out of control, Mr. Perry has also proven that he can keep spending down. State government spending in Texas is at 2003 levels and is the only governor to cut spending in that state since World War II. Since President Obama came to office and while having both a Democrat House and Senate, the national debt increased more in that time than during both terms of Pres. G.W. Bush. According to S&P, the only plan that met the criteria to avoid the loss of our triple-A rating by slowing the trajectory of spending, was passed by the then new Republican led House last year but never taken up by the Democrat led Senate. The Senate has not passed a budget in almost 1000 days. Mr. Perry’s record in cutting spending and getting the members of the legislature of different parties to work together and balance budgets would be a refreshing change in Washington and getting things done.

Mr. Perry’s campaign on his record will have to clearly dispel the myths about job creation in Texas. A common myth is that the job growth in Texas has been primarily due to the energy sector such as oil. According to the Dallas Fed chief Richard Fisher, the mining sector that includes activities for both mining and oil and gas, employs only 2.1% of Texas workers. Most jobs have been created in the educational and health services sector (13.5%). The second most has been in the professional and business sector (12.5% of the Texas workforce). Most new jobs also pay good wages. See: Dallas Fed Chief separates “facts from fiction” on Texas jobs.

Mr. Perry has addressed taxes in Texas by keeping them low, cut spending and has kept regulations from restraining jobs and growth. This not rhetoric, it is the truth. There is no reason why he would not do it in Washington as President. See Mr. Perry’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: My Tax and Spending Reform Plan. His pro growth flat tax plan not only seeks to remove corporate loopholes that usually invite crony capitalism and lobbyists, it also encourages the repatriation of the estimated $1.4 trillion of private capital parked overseas back to invest in America.

Gov. Perry is also keen on reforming the Federal Reserve so it focuses on limiting inflation and ensuring sound money. The Fed’s Quantitative Easing programs (QE1 and QE2) in the last few years have not just devalued the U.S dollar through excess printing of money, but it has aided the erosion in the value of net worth of Americans’ investments or property and caused the costs of living to go up. It is seldom discussed in the media how president Obama’s monetary policies through the fed reserve have had an impact especially on the middle class he claims to protect. Gov. Perry knows this impact on working Americans and is determined to fix it.

Going forward in debates and primaries Mr. Perry should emphasize that his energy plan Energizing American Jobs and Security incorporates the innovativeness and technology of American workers and industry to not only acquire energy, but also do it in an environmentally friendly way. It is a competitive advantage we hold compared to some of the countries we get energy from. He should stress his belief in American ingenuity to get things done right compared to the bureaucratic mindset that prevails in Washington now. His plan also comprises a ‘’all of the above’ strategy of different viable sources determined by the free market and not by special interests.

Gov. Perry might also want to review and embrace the advice the late pioneer Steve Jobs gave to President Obama, which the president did not take. Mr. Job’s advice bodes well with the concept of economic freedom of labor capital and could be incorporated in Gov. Perry’s ideas for economic growth and manufacturing jobs. It also involves a sensible immigration policy to encourage the best and brightest to invest their human capital and expertise in America. See ‘Steve Job’s Advice for Obama’- WSJ.

Tomorrow Gov. Perry will face off again with other candidates in a presidential debate. He will probably not get much face time or questions so it will be crucial to make the best use of what he gets to boost his credibility as being electable.  He will probably not be able to avoid questions about his recent attacks on Mitt Romney about Bain Capital that have already had negative repercussions on Gov. Perry’s own campaign. If the negative ads about Mr. Romney affect him in the polls it does not mean that voters will switch back to Gov. Perry. They will only switch to Gov. Perry if they see him as a distinctive leader with superior qualifications and record and who can articulate his ideas to win. It will be more important than ever for Gov. Perry to prove that restoring the American Idea and economic freedom has greatest chance of survival and prosperity if he is elected President.

As we celebrate Thanksgiving each year and express gratitude for family and the things we appreciate, very little is mentioned about the key roles private property rights and the free market played in its origin. Among the incoherent demands of many in the recent OWS movements have been the notions of wealth re-distribution to the ‘entitled’ through the confiscation of property, and calls for the end of capitalism. It is not a surprise that these calls are coming from the self described anarchists, socialists, and communist groups which are apart of the movement.

Ironically the means and freedoms which allow these groups to advocate their positions have been made possible by the free market system which they seek to destroy. Moreover, how many of these people have actually lived under socialism, fascism, and communism and how many more of their family before them fled these systems to seek liberty and economic prosperity in America?

We are familiar with the first main celebration of Thanksgiving by the Pilgrims in the fall of 1621. But what were the significant elements which contributed to the pilgrims being able survive and to celebrate Thanksgiving thereafter? These elements are property rights, free market ideas and early forms of capitalism which fostered individual upward mobility and economic prosperity.

Rarely is there anything written about these key elements which allowed the early settlers to celebrate a prosperous Thanksgiving. Among the few articles which explain this has been one by Caroline Baum who wrote on the topic in Bloomberg,   ‘ Thanksgiving Story Resonates in Post Crisis Age’, and a  Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell article, ‘ Giving Thanks for the Free Markets’,  Interesting facts about Thanksgiving are often missing in the discussion about this holiday  and seldom taught in schools. However these facts are woven in the birth of the ‘American Idea’.

William Bradford was governor of Plymouth Bay Colony for 30 years between 1621 and 1656. He wrote ‘History of Plymouth Plantation” which was first published in 1856. After the pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620, they established the Plymouth Bay Colony named after their point of departure in England. They endured harsh winters in the first few years due to insufficient crop yields and lack of productivity in the preceding planting seasons. As a result, many died from starvation and some resorted to stealing from others to survive.

Contributing to this was that when the colony was founded all the property was taken away from families and transferred to the “comone wealth”. This was due to a practice brought over by the Pilgrims called “farming in common”, where everything produced was put in a common pool and was re-distributed through harvest rationing.

Governor Bradford observed that when the pilgrims did away with private property it discouraged the young and able to work for others “without any recompence”, or to be productive. Some who were unable and did not produce their own food actually became servants to the Indians. In addition, many who claimed to be too old, ill or unwilling made little effort to contribute in the planting season. They felt ‘entitled’ to the production made by others since it was part of the ‘comone wealth’. This led to the transition of more ‘takers’ than ‘makers’. Soon the output of too few ‘makers’  was not enough to sustain the whole colony thus increasing the chances for starvation, chaos and no harvest to survive the winter.

At the beginning of the spring planting season of 1623 Governor Bradford tried an experiment. He re-allocated land to each family who had theirs previously taken away and re-established private property rights to encourage creativity and increased productivity. This experiment worked very well in aiding the Pilgrims to have enough food for the winter and improve self sufficiency of the colony. This was because members became industrious as they were motivated to enjoy the fruits of their labor from their own property. They were free to innovate in areas of their specialty or preference and also trade the surplus they created for other commodities they wished to consume. In addtition competition further increased productivity on a whole for the colony. Even those who previously did not take part in planting and harvesting because they claimed they were too unwilling, old or ill, became involved in producing so they could enjoy the results of property ownership.

Given the incentives attributed to private property rights, the Pilgrims experienced a successful harvest in the fall of 1623 and set aside “a day of thanksgiving”, and to thank God for their good fortune. So successful was Governor Bradford’s experiment that he noted in an entry done in 1647, the last year covered by his history, “Any general wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day”.

This basic principle of private ownership was a key ingredient to our founding and to the freedom and prosperity we have enjoyed for hundreds of years. It has allowed many with ambition to enjoy the path of upward mobility and invigorated the ‘American Dream’.

 An essential lesson from this part of Thanksgiving history is that a free individual with property rights can make better decisions of his or her property to ensure prosperity than when it is controlled by a few under the premise that this few in government can ensure the ‘common’ good for all.

This topic of conversation would re-emerge during the founding of America when the founders debated the Articles of Federation over 180 years after the first Thanksgiving.  A general conclusion was that man is ‘not infallible’ and therefore NOT perfect or absolutely trustworthy and exempt from liability to error. Thus, absolute power in the hands of a few to control property and freedom of many without the consent of the people being governed would lead to the consequences of the fallible nature of this few.

Today almost 400 years after the first Thanksgiving members of the OWS think that economic prosperity will succeed if the ‘fallible’ few in a powerful overreaching government can be trusted to decide the redistribution of property for the ‘common’ or collective good of everyone.  In essence they will barter away individual freedom and resources for a presumed fallacy of a government provided safety net. This is a fallacy because politicians due to their fallible nature will more likely to redistribute resources for short term political motives than for the economic growth of the individual they govern. The economic future of the country would be bartered away due to the transition from a limited government to a limited people with less liberty.

The 2008 financial crisis stemmed from big government policies for over 20 years which overreached and ignored the free market system. It steered the redirection of resources with the political intent of ‘enabling’ more home ownership of many, but bred the irresponsible and incompetent decisions which still haunts the whole economy.

The key lessons to OWS from the real story about the origins of Thanksgiving not only show that the ideas of economic freedom and free markets worked almost 400 years ago to ensure prosperity, but anything or any movement which seek to undo those ideals since that period have failed with great consequences.

The ideas and principles from the early years which ensured celebrating Thanksgiving through the birth of the founding of America are forever relevant to her existence. This is because the fallible nature of people to destroy those elements are always present. More so, the fallible nature of this group is more potent because it is ignorant of living in a time when the liberty we enjoy today was non-existent and never had to fight for it because others did and more still do to protect liberty.

 We are fortunate to have the individual liberties we enjoy and our armed forces who still fight to protect them.  For all these, we must be thankful and never forget.

During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, America faced the possibility of missiles in our backyard. Based on a report by the  Center for Security Policy and other agencies, it is apparent we may be facing this and other festering security problems again soon. The report: “Taking Iran’s missiles in Venezuela seriously,” warns that Iran is planning to place medium range missiles on the soil of its staunch South American ally. It also corresponds with an article published last October by the German daily Die Welt which said that the two countries had signed an agreement regarding the missiles. While so much attention is being given to the ‘Arab Spring’ by the media, the Iran-Venezuela axis is receiving little attention, especially its effect in undermining regional security.

It is reported that this agreement was signed during a visit by Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez to Tehran on October 19, 2010. Some of the previously undisclosed terms reveal that this agreement will allow a joint military base to be built on Venezuela’s Paraguana Peninsula and manned by both Iran Revolutionary Guard Corp and Venezuelan military. In addition, not only would the missiles be used in Iran’s interests but Venezuela was also given permission to use it for ‘ emergency’ or ‘national needs’ such as a threat to it’s neighbor and American ally, Columbia.

 Last February engineers from Khatam al-Anbia, a firm operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard visited Venezuela to inspect the site and the building of missile silos. Intelligence reports indicate that the head of the Revolutionary Guard Amir Al-Hadschisadeh was also present in addition to experts from the chemical engineering department of the Polytechnic and Sharif Universities of Tehran.

Iran’s relationship with Venezuela has allowed Iran to circumvent UN sanctions meant to prevent it from gaining weapons and materials. According to the Russian press agency Novosti, when Russia could not sell the $800 million worth of arms including  S-300SMU-1 missiles to Iran due to UN sanctions, it sought a new customer which turned out to be Venezuela. These missiles have the range to hit major cities on the US east coast. Hugo Chavez has already spent billions on purchasing Russian arms and in 2009 said that Venezuela and Iran were working to build a “nuclear village”. The cooperation between Venezuela and Iran regarding weapons development itself violates sanctions against Iran approved by the UN Security Council.

Visits by Iranian officials to Caracas are possibly facilitated by the on and off again mysterious flights between Iran and Venezuela via Damascus highlighted in my previous article – ‘The Iran-Venezuela Threat While we Debate Border Security, and Our Vulnerability to Worse than 9-11.’ The article highlighted a number of sources and articles from different experts who have followed the developments and promote awareness about the Iran-Venezuela axis.

These include   Peter Brookes, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation  and a former secretary of defense who also served in the Navy, with the CIA and on capitol Hill, who voiced his concerns in an article about Ahmadinejad and Chavez’s nuclear and terrorist ties. Mr. Brookes expressed concerns about the regular flight linking Tehran, Damascus and Caracas. The inspection of customs and materials or immigration processing of travelers between Tehran and Caracas is highly questionable.   In an article in Armed Forces Journal he  outlined that not only could Tehran, which is successfully enriching uranium to low levels, help Caracas with a nuclear program that Moscow starts, it could also help begin in Venezuela it self. Chavez has actually suggested this publicly.  On 9/11/2009 during Chavez’s eight trip to Iran he called the country a strategic ally for helping Venezuela develop its own nuclear program. In November of 2008 and in the middle of a crushing financial crisis, Chavez ordered his treasury to channel $50 million towards a secret nuclear program.

The threat in America’s backyard from the Iran-Venezuela axis is two fold. Not only is placing missiles a concern but also Iran’s long relationship with terror groups who have shown interest in our porus southern border. The Canadian uranium exploration U308 Corp has recorded a substantial source of uranium in the Roraima basin which along the border of Venezuela and Guyana. Containers have been seized on their way to Venezuela with nitrates and sulfate chemicals that are used to manufacture explosives. Other suspicious activities have included joint ventures totaling at least $30 billion between the two countries that can be used as a front to conceal multimillion transactions. This alliance provides the Iranian regime with a reliable source of uranium helps it evade restrictions on trade and financing and gives Middle Eastern terrorists access to weapons from Mr. Chavez’s growing arsenal. This alliance not only serves  as insurance policy for Iran to cancel out meaningful sanctions from the West, it also dangerously gives Iran or Islamic radicals the stage to retaliate or attack the U.S. It would not be difficult to enter from our insecure borders.

It is more troubling as the Iranian relationship has helped boost Venezuelan support  of Middle Eastern radicals. Over 500 tons of weapons have been seized en route from Venezuela to Syria ultimately bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Chavez support for Colombian terrorists and his complicity in drug trafficking is unsettling especially when the prospect of his support with traffickers on our border is a possibility. Mr. Chavez is a self-declared enemy of the United States who has aided terrorist groups and radical regimes for more than a decade and is obsessive to hold on to power and exert his influence in the region. Apart from the missile agreement, Iran and Venezuela have committed to memorandum of understanding committing full military support and understanding.  With Iranian personnel reported to be embedded with the Venezuelan military, some members of Congress have supported a resolution calling on the State Department to add Venezuela to the list of State sponsor of terrorism due to its involvement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia a.k.a FARC. Unfortunately there are more reasons Venezuela should be added to the list.

Chavez has longed been accused of accommodating FARC  in Venezuela and ignoring their drug trafficking activities en route to countries such as the U.S. However, the association with the Iran backed terrorist group Hezbollah in the region and the support they might be getting from Chavez has escalated the danger of this axis. Hezbollah it has been reported has been penetrating into large immigrant communities in Venezuela and other countries in South America even learning Spanish fluently. Some reports indicate that Hezbollah operatives make use of the Caracas-Damascus-Tehran flights, are processed on arrival separately and do not go through normal immigration or customs procedures in Caracas.

Apart from a few people like Peter Brookes and organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, very few in media are drawing attention to the possible terrorism web involving Iran, Venezuela and Hezbollah,   especially how it is tied to border security.  However, terrorism analyst Brigitte Gabriel at  ACT for America has also sought to reinforce the dangers we face. She has written about the alliance between drug cartels and groups who seek to smuggle terrorists through the Mexican border. The problem is not only on the Venezuela-Colombia border anymore but literally in our back yard. Mrs. Gabriel made an observation about a denotation of an Improvised Explosive Device IED along the Texas-Mexico Border last year. It was similar to the ones killing our solders in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are largely sourced from Iran. This occurrence strongly indicates that Hezbollah is already working with drug cartels. Also, last year a worker at the Mexican Embassy in Beirut was caught selling visas to enter Mexico. Furthermore, intelligence analysts believe that terrorist groups like al Qaeda have been collaborating with these gangs such as the ruthless MS-13 to smuggle terrorists in America. It is suggested that al Qaeda is paying up to $50,000 to smuggle in a single terrorist and Hezbollah funded by Iran paying up to $10,000. The alliance between the cartels and the terrorist groups allows the cartels to learn expertise in making tunnels to smuggle drugs and also learn bomb making skills from Hezbollah, who in turn smuggles terrorists and weapons to be possibly be used in America. Last Thanksgiving, a 2,200-foot cross border tunnel was discovered in San Diego, complete with lighting and ventilation and a rail system. It had design elements synonymous with Hezbollah type tunnels. Hezbollah it is important to remember, is Iran’s proxy army trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the same folks ‘setting up shop’ in Venezuela. Not only has Hezbollah been tied to Iran but a Saif al-Adel who found refuge in Iran after being expelled from Afghanistan by U.S forces and has been named as a possible replacement for Bin Laden.  

In addition, should America and Iran have a confrontation, Iran is increasingly gaining the ability to have operatives who are smuggled through our borders to retaliate and probably cause much more terror than 9/11. Intelligence analysts believe there is at least 11 Hezbollah cells in the United States. Iran knows that it cannot compete with the U.S with conventional military means but has the unconventional means to enable terrorists to severely damage this country. Our biggest treat from Iran or the terrorists it is aligned with might not only be a missile but also a nuclear, biological or dirty bomb denoted in a large city such as New York, D.C, Chicago or L.A.

The growing allegiance between Venezuela and Iran has grown from highly suspicious to actively confrontational. It is serving as a catalyst for instability in the region and direct threat to the homeland. After 9/11, Americans were in shock as to how this event could have happened and by such simple means by a shadow group of terrorists. Now we are faced with the combination of a shadow group such as Hezbollah supported by a nuclear seeking axis in our back yard. It seems we have forgotten how a patient enemy can use our simple vulnerabilities to severely harm us.

It is imperative for the Obama administration to take Iran’s interest and Venezuela’s willingness to accommodate missiles aimed at the U.S seriously and should actively seek to deter any further development. The consequences of dealing with a nuclear Iran especially after missiles of any kind  are placed in our region, will be far greater than actions to deter these ambitions before it is too late.  As the Heritage Foundation’s film ( 33 Minutes- Protecting America in a New Missile Age) illustrates, it only takes about 33 minutes for a missile launched from Iran or North Korea to reach the U.S. From Venezuela, it could take much less. Heritage has been very active raising awareness about the missile defense through thorough expert research and reports. Its website states, “The threat from long-range nuclear missiles is growing and endangers the lives of millions of Americans, while upsetting regional and global stability. America needs a comprehensive ballistic missile defense system that employs a multilayered defense system of sea, ground, and space-based systems.”

Also imperative is border security, which was mocked by President Obama recently during his campaign speech where he implied that enough was being done and that those who want more may want to get a ‘moat with alligators’. While there is no one solution for a securing the almost 2000 mile border, there is a need for real leadership on the issue. One opportunity is by leading on a combined federal and state effort to secure the border such as having each of the four states with input from towns along the southern border submit proposals which uniquely fit their local challenges. Unique proposals for unique challenges might even encourage innovation from private companies who would be encouraged to compete to solve those local border issues. For example the Department of Homeland Security DHS after cancelling a virtual border fence costing billions has investing millions to adapt a Predator UAV for border surveillance. However, a retired U.S army officer developed a low tech alternative called Sentinel. It is commercially produced, powered glider with advanced sensors which could perform missions at a fraction of the costs of a Predator. Sentinel believes that ten of these gliders could provide stealthy surveillance of the entire border for about $10 million versus $200 million for 23 predators. The DHS won’t even consider this idea.

Border security is no matter for political correctness football or just an issue to talk about during campaign without credible actions. It is matter of life and death and there are an abundance of terrorists who will use it as a means to seek the latter for many Americans.

Related Links and Research on National Security by The Heritage Foundation:

Protect America Month ( May 2011) – Videos of speeches by experts on National Security Issues.

Ballistic Missiles – The Heritage Foundation Recommends

Morning Bell – Time for America to get Cyber-Serious

As we celebrate the demise of Osama bin Laden it is very important for the Obama Administration to follow through on the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and continue the successful elements of the War on Terror. President Obama deserves much credit for making the difficult decision to OK the mission carried out by our heroic Navy Seals which ended in killing Osama bin Laden. However the political correctness displayed by this administration (which also decried Bush policies that helped to lead to the actual finding of bin Laden), is still prevalent in the trial of self confessed 9/11 mastermind KSM.

 Very early in Mr. Obama’s Presidency he set out to appease his anti-war left base by trying to close Guantanamo Bay and limit the CIA to U.S military interrogation methods. Attorney General Eric Holder has persisted in his criminal investigation of CIA officers who had interrogated al Qaeda leaders. Some of these officers accessed information which possibly led to the capture of key terrorists, foiled terror attacks and may even have led to the pin pointing bin Laden’s whereabouts. However these officers are still facing prosecution by the country they risked their lives to protect. According to the Heritage Foundation, setting up Gitmo was one of the top six reasons we got Osama.

 The Associated Press has reported that the name of the courier may have been attained from CIA interrogations of KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libi, who received harsh interrogation at CIA prisons in Poland and Romania. The trial of KSM was stalled in 2009 when military commissions were stopped by Obama  who along with  Eric Holder tried to pursue the more political correct civilian trials for Guantanamo detainees.  After those efforts were nixed last year partly due to congressional pressure, the administration has rejected to continue the proceedings against KSM from where they were left off in Bush administration. A recent article in the New York Post by Richard Miniter highlights Cmdr. Leslie Hull-Ryde, a Defense Department spokeswoman who confirmed that:

 “The original charges against KSM and his co-defendants were withdrawn and dismissed. In the event charges are sworn and referred against these individuals, the process will start from the beginning, which will be the arraignment. Any charges sworn against KSM and his co-defendants and referred to a military commission will not be bound by any motions or rulings made in the previous commission.”

 The success of killing bin Laden should not over shadow the need to serve justice in the trial of another mass murdering terrorist such as KSM. Apart from being the mastermind of 9/11, he has killed hundreds of Muslims himself in the East African embassy and the Bali bombings. He originally pleaded guilty to personally beheading Daniel Pearl, to the 9/11 attacks and 30 other mass murders, but then reversed his guilty plea because his co-defendants were not allowed to plead with him.

 The mockery of our justice system by the likes of KSM should not be enabled by the reluctance of Attorney General to take action in completing their prosecutions. The Obama administration has not yet begun the process of re-charging KSM or even formally making the decision to do so. Due to strong opposition by the public and congress to civilian trials, Eric Holder has made it obvious that he was not pleased that he would have to resort back to military commissions.

 Basking in the limelight of the demise of bin Laden should encourage President Obama to advise his Attorney General to move on with these trials and drop the prosecutions of CIA operatives. However today while visiting Ground Zero the president was questioned by the sister of an airline pilot who died on 9/11 about those issues , and President Obama indicated that he would not give his opinion to Eric Holder.

 The true test of leadership on the War on Terror (words which were avoided by this administration) will come not from making a single decision such as permitting a mission which killed bin Laden. Rather the test is based on a series of decisions which recognize that we are at war with an unconventional enemy who follows no rules of engagement. In addition this test of leadership involves a series of decisions which takes precedence in securing victory and providing for the common defense over political ideology and personal political consequences.

 President Bush made series of decisions sometimes unpopular which greatly aided in the capture and demise of terrorists such as bin Laden. Now as President Obama displayed leadership in permitting the bin Laden mission, his leadership will be judged in the series of decisions he makes in dealing with the War on Terror. Hopefully it will not be based on exerting political correctness, or will it?

Related Links :

The Heritage Foundation Celebrates Protect America Month

The Wall Street Journal : Eric Holder’s bin Laden Moment by Daniel Henninger

TownHall.com : Bush Led bin Laden Dead,but Where is The Credit by Larry Elder

The Wall Street Journal : From Guantanamo to Abbotabad by John Yoo

The New York Post : KSM Back to Zero by Richard Miniter – His new book “Mastermind: The Many Faces of 9/11 Architect, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,” in book stores since May 3.

President Obama’s support of union protesters in Wisconsin highlights more about him than his plain words. It reveals that not only does he undermine the real effort of positive change by Governor Walker’s bill to reduce the State’s deficit, the President also condones the failed entitlement policies which have bankrupted Greece and other European countries. It is evident that a government becomes destructive to the needs of the governed when its growth is due to a symbiotic relationship with special interest groups such as public employee unions, and is bound by a conflict of interest in redistributing public funds for political spoils. The common repetitive narrative to justify such actions on premise of ‘protecting the rights of the middle class’ is negated by the stark reality and truths which are contrary to the interests and consent of the people.  Furthermore and probably most troubling, this attitude encourages and facilitates a culture where entitlements are interpreted as rights to supersede personal responsibility. Such a culture not only starves economic growth, it also accommodates the emergence of a failed un-productive nanny state.  

 Mr. Obama recently expressed his support for the protestors while admitting he knows nothing about the bill but went on to say:

 “These folks are teachers and firefighters and are social workers and they are police officers” he said, “and it is important not to vilify them”.

 The President is right that he knows nothing about the bill because it explicitly excludes police and firefighters. However his reaction ignites serious questions, can President Obama exemplify the necessary leadership to do what it really takes to reduce the current $1.65 trillion deficit which quadrupled under his watch and continue to rise? Would he rather ignore the wishes of voters who elect representatives to solve deficits so he can cater to the special interests such as public sector unions?  Mr. Obama and his Democrat allies have been beholden to public sector unions because of the gravy train of union member dues funneled to fund their political power. In return the public-union leaders negotiate ever-larger pay and benefits from the very politicians they help elect. All at the taxpayers expense in the form of higher taxes and more debt most often borne by the middle class. The unions in effect sit on both sides of the bargaining table and the government negotiating on taxpayers behalf have a huge incentive to ignore taxpayers interest in contract discussions. As such, any attempt even in the interest of tax payers to reform the abuse of this flow of funds is fiercely opposed by public sector unions and Democrats such as President Obama all in the name of ‘protecting’ children and ‘rights’.

 Americans voted in November for real change and rightfully expect true leadership in solving real issues. The elected Republican lead Congress and Governors like Scott Walker have the task to avoid going down the unsustainable path of higher deficits, taxes and debt. The states and the nation overall are at a crossroads and need real solutions based on reality and truths. The elements that feed a fiscal crisis cannot be kicked down the road any longer without dire and perhaps irreversible consequences. While Washington can borrow from the Chinese or call on the Federal Reserve to buy bonds or print money, states must make the difficult budgetary choices of either higher self defeating taxes or getting costs under control. It is important to note that high deficits and debt is not only due to the escalating cost influenced by public employee unions, but it is a key contributor and one which leaders or representatives can do something about.

 Governor Walker is faced with a $3.6 billion deficit and the nation’s fourth largest per capita unfunded public-pension liability. His proposed bill requires public union members to contribute 12.6% to their health-insurance up from less than 6% and to contribute 5.8% towards their pensions, up from 0.2%. These are modest contributions compared to what most taxpayers who work in the private sector pay for them selves. The comparable nationwide employee health care contribution is 20% for private sector workers according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the Employee Benefits Research Institute the average contribution towards pension benefits was 7.5% in 2009. Without these reforms taxpayers would eventually have to pay higher taxes to subsidize the generous benefits and salaries of government union workers. In addition without these reforms the number of new hires in the public employee sector would be severely restricted, funding to other state obligations would be compromised and Wisconsin would eventually have to lay off up to 5,500 public workers. This also illustrates another point which President Obama and Democrats should realize, controlling costs and getting budgets under control is a real way of ensuring the ability to save and create jobs.  

 The main issue of contention between Governor Walker’s bill, and public employee unions is the proposal to end some collective bargaining by most government employees for benefits. They would still be able to bargain for higher wages but future wage increases would be capped at the federal Consumer Price Index unless specified by a voter referendum. This not only enhances accountability and keeps public employee pay in line with the same constraints experienced by the general public, but the viability of such wage increases can be determined by the taxpayer who ultimately pays the bill. How could this hurt the middle class as implied by supporters of the unions in Wisconsin?

Democrats and unions around the country are stirring up groups to protest at other state capitals. Many of these Democrats  have abandoned their own calls for civility and are silent to the many vile behaviors exhibited by the protestors they support. Earlier when the protests began, about 40% teachers called in sick and many were fraudulently given ‘sick notes’ from doctors so they could take part in demonstrations while still getting paid. Some of these teachers included the same teachers who sued the Milwaukee school board last August to get Viagra coverage restored to their health-care plans. Robert Costrell a professor of education reform and economics at the University of Arkansas wrote an article last Friday in the Wall Street Journal- ‘Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin’. It highlighted how the excessive power of collective bargaining has lead to fringe benefits which cost almost as much as their salary. The article helps to reinforce the point by Governor Walker to limit collective bargaining rights for benefits. It would give statewide local governments and school districts the flexible management tools to avoid layoffs and get budgets under control. Even liberals such as FDR and former Socialist Mayor of Milwaukee Frank Zeidler understood the consequences of collective bargaining and spoke put against it. Collective bargaining is not a constitutional or natural right and is limited or banned in 24 states.

 Governor Walker’s aim of ending collective bargaining for benefits and work rules has been described by President Obama as an “assault on the unions”. However the real assault has been inflamed by President Obama but led by Organizing for America, the group formed from President Obama’s 2008 campaign and aided by liberals including the Democratic National Committee. This real assault by these groups is on the general public’s trust in government to be responsible stewards of taxpayers’ resources, which instead has been used as a means to an end to ensure the political power of many Democrats, including President Obama. The assault is played out on taxpayers as they are constantly expected to pay for huge benefits for government workers while hundreds of millions of union member dues can be redistributed to elect mostly Democrats instead of paying for these union members own benefits. Changes in Governor Walker’s proposal would end the government’s role in collecting dues from paychecks of union members and then sending them back to the unions. Unions instead would responsible for their own collection of dues. Members would not be mandated to pay these dues as they are now and would require that public-employee unions be recertified annually by a majority vote of all members, not just by a majority of those who cast ballots. Governor Walker explains that, “If workers have the freedom of choice on their own dues money and a real voice in their union, they may get better representation.” Mr. Walker went on to highlight that he will not be changing the civil services rules which actually protect the employee rights that people care about, such as, the strongest protections in the country on grievance procedures, merit hiring and just cause for disciplining and termination. Rights which supporters of the protestors give the impression are protected by collective bargaining, but are not. The facts are that union members would actually have more rights and say in how their own money is spent rather than surrendering it to their union bosses to do as they will. How could this be an assault on union members as described by President Obama and other liberals when members will actually have more freedom and rights? Kimberley Strassel in her recent article- ‘Union Power for Thee, But Not for Me’- pointed out that if President Obama is so upset with Wisconsin’s proposed labor laws, why does he not allow federal workers to bargain collectively?

 These facts are ignored by Democrats and their union boss cohorts because it would reveal their real motives for attacking Governor Walker’s bill and inflaming protests. The proposals would reduce the growing union dominance in the Democratic Party, their monopoly position which gives them undue bargaining power would be restricted, and automatic deductions of union dues would break the cycle in which the government collects dues and gives then back to the unions, who in turn funnels them back to their favorite candidates to gain more pay and benefits. In typical liberal fashion, Democrats under the premise of being a protector and provider of rights for a group, Democrats seek to grow government and give themselves more political power by actually reducing the freedom of the group they purport to defend.

 According to Myron Lieberman, a school teacher who became a contract negotiator for the American Federation of Teachers, since the 1960s collective bargaining has so “greatly increased the political influence of unions” that they block the sorts of necessary change that other elements of society have had to accept. This was mentioned in John Fund’s recent article in the Wall Street Journal – “What’s at Stake in the Wisconsin’s Budget Battle” , which also posed the question , “Who’s in charge of our political system-voters or government unions?

 The rhetoric by protestors to associate their actions with the freedom and democracy movements in the Middle East cannot mask the truth.They are more synonymous with the protests in Athens after the implications of going broke ceased the provision of certain entitlements. It is a path which Wisconsin and the rest of the country will take if deficits continue to spiral out of control.  The protests in Wisconsin and around the country will no doubt include calls by liberals for ‘taxing the rich’ to solve a fiscal crisis. The response to that, why should government be given more of other peoples’ earned money when government have proven in many cases inept in using it in the interest of  taxpayers? Government has been more apt to spend taxpayers money on political motives compared to the taxpayers themselves who are more likely to spend it on economic investments and progress. In addition, encouraging the culture of ‘taxing the rich’ mantra only seeks to absolve the personal responsibility and accountability required to handle real problems. Governor Walker and other leaders around the country realize this and that is why it is important they succeed in real reforms.

 Some liberals will defend union support of Democrats and criticize Republicans who get large support from corporations, but so does President Obama and other Democrats who at times are the largest recipients of such donations. In addition, corporate donations are their own money, not other peoples’ money. Most liberals did not have a problem when President Obama supported billions of dollars in U.S loans to an offshore drilling company partly owned by key liberal billionaire contributor George Soros - to drill off the coast of Brazil. While at the same time many Americans will lose their jobs and our capacity to drill for our own oil because of the his administration’s moratorium against drilling. 

 As we head into the 2012 election cycle there will be no doubt that the outcome of budget battles taking place in Wisconsin and other states  around the country between governors and unions will be apart of the debate. It will reveal those who show real leadership in solving issues, and are capable of getting budgets under control. Taxpayers know they have been taken for granted for far too long and will ultimately decide who is on their side or who will be destructive to their fiscal or economic future. Just as the founders intended, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, the people will have the right to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.

Other Links and Related Articles and Videos on this Subject :

Union’s Classic ‘Le$$en’ – 1,500 paid to do union business instead of teach: By Susan Edelman- NY Post

Nationwide Budget Battle Showdowns – myHeritage.org

The Public Worker Gravy Train- By Andrew Biggs and Jason Richwine