As a "neocon" I resent those remarks!

Well, when I first heard the term and how it was applied, I thought it described me very well. By that I mean "neocon" as a former liberal turned conservative, while some anti-Semites act like "neocon" is a new name for what they used to call "Jews." A few years ago I wrote an essay about it, entitled "What Is a Neo-Conservative?"

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/articles/neocon.html

Sorry I took so long to get back with you. Actually, there isn't as much difference in our viewpoints as you may think. The main one is that I think the military can be used to help others when it is in our interests to do so, and you don't. Otherwise, we're both in favor of stopping illegal immigration and spending less.

You have to admit that Bush doesn't act very conservative at all when it comes to domestic spending. Besides what the military needs, he has approved hundreds of billions for Medicare to cover drug prescriptions. The largest agriculture subsidy in history. An education program ("No Child Left Behind") so generous that only Teddy Kennedy isn't satisfied with it. A $286.5 billion highway spending bill in 2005 that was loaded with 6,371 pet projects, like the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," in a volume so big (1,752 pages) that I doubt anybody ever read the whole thing. When Ronald Reagan vetoed a highway bill like that in 1987, one that earmarked money for only 157 projects, he said, "I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair." Bush, however, finds it extremely difficult to say no; he didn't veto a bill of any kind until July 2006, when he got one requesting funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

Regarding immigration, a few years ago one of the most prominent neo-cons, Victor Davis Hanson, wrote a book on what illegal immigration was doing to his home state, called "Mexifornia." You'd probably agree with most of the points he made against the practice of employing what he called modern-day "helots" or "serfs."

Finally, both Bush and McCain are a little too friendly with the environmentalist whackos. If you ask me, I have my doubts about man-made global warming, and even if it is real, we could go a long way towards solving it with two simple actions that won't hurt our lifestyle: put out Darvaza, the 200-foot-wide gas crater that has been burning in Turkmenistan for the past 37 years, and retire the pompous windbag from Delaware, Joe Biden.

I don't know if I posted it in our group, but a few months back I made a sound-bite version of what I'd like to see the next president do, or at least promise:

1. Abolish the IRS.
2. Cut spending.
3. Ignore the tree-huggers.
4. Secure the borders.
5. Kill the terrorists.
6. Smack the hippies.

Am I correct in assuming that we're in agreement on all of the above, except maybe #5?

On the war front, the paleo-con idea that we should wait until an enemy comes to us made sense before World War I, when we had two oceans protecting our shores, but not today. Pearl Harbor showed us that any target within range of an aircraft carrier's planes is fair game. We're especially at risk if the enemy has nuclear weapons, and is eager to use them. I'm not talking about the Russians, because they weren't willing to risk losing Moscow in an attack on Washington, but Iran, which sees the destruction of Israel and the US as a way to bring back the Mahdi, is a different matter. The MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine got us through the Cold War, but it won't work against someone who is truly mad.

The same thing applied to Baathist Iraq; remember how after September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein was the only head of state who said we got what we deserved? Even traditional enemies like Libya, North Korea and Cuba offered us condolences on that fateful day. That told me we'd have to deal with Iraq someday, as long as Hussein insisted on trying to get nuclear weapons and supported the world's worst terrorists. If the war in Iraq was just about oil, as many liberals like to say, don't you think our troops would have taken it by now?

As for Georgia, I'm watching the Caucasus to see what develops. Of course we're not going to go in before Election Day, and it may not be feasible to go in at all, since it looks like the Georgians are too far from us, and too close to Russia. Some say the Russian invasion was retaliation for us supporting the independence of Kosovo. Well, let the record show that I thought it was a mistake for Bush to endorse the Kosovar move, and in recent years I have come to believe that we did the Serbs dirty; after all, they WERE on our side in both World Wars. Oil may be a factor in Georgia, too, because they have the only oil and gas pipeline from Central Asia that doesn't pass through Russia. Finally, the Georgians have pointed out that they helped us in Iraq. Hopefully some form of non-military pressure, like expelling Russia from the G-8 group, will be enough to make Vladimir Putin think twice, before he tries to make any more trouble.

*And now back to you.*

Am I correct in assuming that we're in agreement on all of the above, except maybe #5?

Mostly, but not entirely, on #5 and #3, which I will attempt to clarify!

Kill the SOBs, yes, but the whole thing on terrorists starts within the US. STOP allowing muslime immigration to the US--why in the world did we ever allow it to begin with? What are we doing issuing visas to the likes of the (mostly) Saudis who were responsible for the attacks of 911, with that anniversary just a few days away, going on 7 years?!? Why are we allowing THEM to dictate to US that we should respect THEIR so-called smarmy "religion?" Why does the Patriot Act specifically protect muslimes already in the US? Why do we give a rat's a** about those already here? They won't assimilate, and they will never be true Americans. The more our country splinters as to culture, language and yes--even religion--the more we are headed down the road to our own downfall and ruin as a country. The USA appears to no longer be a melting pot, but rather a hodgepodge of warring multicultural factions of various sorts! Practicing one's culture, customs and language at home is one thing--demanding that it be accounted for within the larger society (voter ballots in multiple languages is a prime example)--is quite another.

Why are we attempting to impose US-style democracy on a culture/country that is as foreign to us as we are to them? It makes NO sense whatsoever. We destroy one haven for terrorists, another pops up elsewhere. Iraq is Bush the elder's unfinished business, and the son took it upon himself to finish the job. We needed to be in Afghanistan--to find the SOB that was responsible for 911--but our resources were directed elsewhere after they decided that Afghanistan was stable. That nutjob of a country has never been stable, and probably never will be, without being propped up by US forces for decades to come.

But we're stuck in this quagmire, and it's going to be difficult to extricate ourselves. In hindsight, (always 20-20) I see Iraq as a grievous mistake, poor planning for the aftermath...and Afghanistan as where we should have been, and stayed to finish the job. I think that is the reason Bush the elder didn't take out Saddam during Gulf Storm--he was probably all too aware of what it could unleash. I have read that he advised Bush the younger NOT to invade Iraq. But.....it was invaded, and now we have to watch him pass his mess on to someone else. Notice that Bush has stubbornly refused to plan for an ending date, at least publicly. What goes on behind the scenes, we do not know.

For what it's worth, getting involved in the Balkans/Serbs/Bosnians mess was another mistake. What were we doing aiding muslimes against Christian Serbs?!?

*Climbs down off of terrorist-hating soapbox*

Now, onto the tree huggers. There are those who want forests/timberlands untouched and left alone. Well, if left alone, Mother Nature will take care of that as she always has--with fire and its devastating effects. The more man builds within forested areas, the greater the danger of fire destroying what he has built. So, forests need to be managed and thinned out, instead of leaving it entirely to nature. Dead undergrowth needs to be cleared out, and the trees themselves thinned out. On the other hand, formerly forested areas that have been stripped bare--with resulting floods, mudslides, et al...need to be replanted and managed accordingly.

There has to be a better way than what is being (or not being) done now.

It is a different story out here when it comes to underground water. Those who do not live in desert environments (which I do, and always have, or at least semi-arid dryland) do not understand how precious water is out here. I worry about anything that can contaminate what sources we do have, because the growth out here is incredible. NM has only two million people, but is growing...and water is always a concern.

I want development, drilling for oil and growth, but I want all of that done in an intelligent and planned manner. We cannot afford unplanned urban sprawl out here without considering the consequences, and ground water MUST be protected, period.

With the new technological advances in development and the oil and gas industry, intelligently planned exploration is possible, but it's going to be difficult over the screaming of the liberals here. In a word, there has to be more balance, rather than one extreme or the other!

I have my voter registration card ready to go in November........