Foreign & Domestic Policy – Integrally United

By Scott W. Winchell and Denise Simon

The M.A.S.T. Project – (Military Advisory and Strategy Team)

Stand Up America and a great many other constitutional conservative organizations are simply appalled by the lack of understanding about the most important issue facing the nation today – the fact that the economy and US foreign policy are integrally tied. To many people, the two issues are separate from each other and need to be dealt with independently; quite possibly, a fatal error.

In this campaign season for the Presidency, these two issues are at the forefront. Last night, the first debate focused upon domestic policies and by all accounts the challenger, Mitt Romney scored a resounding victory. Fortunately, more debates are scheduled to address foreign policy as well. The next Presidential debate is scheduled for October 16th, and like the Vice Presidential debate scheduled for next Thursday, the topic will be domestic and foreign policy.

The fact is, foreign and economic/domestic policy are not mutually exclusive by any means because the failure of one or both means the demise of our way of life – our security depends on both equally. Yes we have the most technologically advanced weaponry, employed by the most superior, well-trained troops in quantity and quality, but it is hamstrung by ham-handed foreign policy and politically active Pentagon elites.

Our economy also still leads the world, and how we fare means the success or failure of the world economy, but it too is being hamstrung by ham-handed domestic policy. The two candidates tackled one aspect last night, now, if handled correctly, the candidate who demonstrates a mastery of the integral nature of the two will succeed, not just in gathering votes, but more importantly, will correct the course of our ship of state and allow our economy to truly rebound.

The biggest threat to American security is a failed economy, and that failure, when married to the spate of foreign policy and diplomatic failures of the past three plus years means we are on the brink of complete collapse if we stay this course. Our status in the world will have collapsed, and our society will have followed suit.

The differences in philosophy between the candidates are oceans apart. The first of the two means proceeding with the status quo based on “getting your fair share”, from a re-distributive government bent on, at a minimum, equalizing our standing among nations. The second setting a course based on sound advice from people who have the type of experience that marries the two issues, where the nation will regain its necessary standing as the economic engine of the world. A stable environment supported by a state of peace through strength once again.

The question is therefore: do enough people in the electorate understand this? Do our two Presidential candidates understand this? The answer is a resounding no, at least emphatically on the left. The status quo candidate who “fundamentally transformed” our place in the pecking order of nations certainly does not desire America to lead, domestically or internationally. The challenger has demonstrated to the nation in the first debate that he already possesses a mastery of what it takes to revive this great economic engine, but does he have equally good advice and experience with its partner, foreign policy, and a strategic plan that will knit a new fabric of leading the world from the unraveling rag we are now using to clean up the mess?

Each campaign is advised by a slate of “experts”, most derived from two camps. On the left, the Chicago “thug-ocracy” rules, a group advised by a very well entrenched and intertwined core of Marxists, Communists, and Socialists, inextricably entwined with pro-Islamic fundamentalists who rule the day. On the right, we see advice arising from the usual cast of ‘belt-way’ insiders, woefully ignorant, yet arrogant in their understanding of the world stage. Yes they have business bona fides, and previous administration chops, but they lack one thing – mastery of the concept of victory. Of those advising the challenger, is there a true understanding of our disparate cultures? Is there the type of advice from leadership in our military and intelligence forces that not only understands the cultures of the many troubled zones of the world, but also understands the interconnectedness of the many players so artfully plying their cunning ways on the chessboard?

The right strives to identify with the conservatism and leadership demonstrated so well by Ronald Reagan who led our nation into prosperity through the policy of peace through strength. In that period of time there were true commanders and flag officers that knew how to lead and win. They were supported by members of the intelligence trade craft of yore, all successful because they were not constrained by lawyers and self-serving politicians. These men and women still thrive today, yet few listen – a fatal error compounded.

To offset these fatal errors, SUA proposes an advisory policy group called the MAST Project (Military Advisory and Strategy Team). This is a group of people who have demonstrated mastery for the Battle for America; understand the threat of radical Islam the failed Nation Building strategy under COIN, the forward strategy of Joint Strike Force Operations (The “Lily Pad” Strategy), and the experience in analyzing information and real-time intelligence and producing actionable strategies, tactics and foreign policy.

These people offer their advice and counsel at this most critical stage in American history. These people are from, or learned from the “Greatest Generation” and are here once again to save this great country.

These people are people of wisdom, experience, common sense, vibrancy, awareness, and are well-versed and supported by networks of intelligence professionals, economic titans, and patriotic self-sacrificing experts. Imagine the room populated by the following people and more:

  • Thomas McInerney (LTG USAF – Ret.)
  • Paul E. Vallely (MG US Army – Ret.)
  • Charles C. Jones III (BG USAF – Ret.)
  • William G. Boykin (LTG US Army – Ret.)
  • Frank Gaffney
  • Ambassador John Bolton
  • Michael V. Hayden (General USAF –Ret., former CIA Director)
  • Mayor Rudy Giuliani
  • Andrew C. McCarthy III

A first task of MAST is to suggest the most experienced and the best of the best for Senior Cabinet positions and other key positions of the Romney administration.

What does the internet think about Barack Obama?

Editor’s Note – SUA would like to join its partner at PRonlineNews.com and request your opinion in this all important campaign season. What does the internet think? Not some MSM Poll agency!

Join us at SUAand PRonlineNews in answering this question: “What does the internet think about Barack Obama?”

PRonlineNews.com

If you have ever wondered if the internet has an opinion about a certain subject, person or place look no farther. There is a ‘BETA” algorithm designed to equally define by content and remark, an opinion on a person, place or thing that is quantified in terms of negative, positive and indifferent.

Again, all measurements are not a precise science but they are reported as equal trends with equal measure for each (in this case people) person that we inserted into the search space.

The results shown to our focus group produced truly remarkable comments.

The entries are listed by negativity and demonstrates that the Internet doesn’t think too highly of our President, Barack Obama with a negative value of 54.5%.

Try it for yourself at What Does The Internet Think.net

'Collapse of America' or the 'Republic Reclaimed' – Stand Up & Decide

National Call to Action Project

By Paul E. Vallely

MG Paul Vallely

Yes America, we are still on suicide watch over this great country as re-election victory scenarios are developed and employed to ensure Barrack Obama and his Progressive Socialist supporters, radical union thugs, Chicago cut-throat operators, and ardent admirers win in November at any cost.  We must understand that they have an “agenda”, and it’s not an agenda whose priority is America as we know it. They are following that ‘agenda’ closely, on all fronts, foreign and domestic, all portending the further deterioration of our country, its decline on the world stage, and its impact on the constitution.

After my recent visit to Europe, Turkey, and the Syrian border area, I was embarrassed to find a total lack of respect and trust of the United States government. I took pains to ensure those I met that America is not monolithic as a people; rather, we are a nation in the throes of an identity crisis of our own. I explained that we are a nation whose present government has deeply divided us, and that as a people, we strive to re-earn their respect – to help them in their journey as we proceed along ours as we have done for generations.

Despite these divisions, I am encouraged. I am finally sensing that Americans are starting to wake up and the winds of a new revolution are swirling to save the country. We are at a crossroads to right our own ship, and to help those who strive for freedom from tyranny as we have done so often in the American century past, and the goal of another American century today. But we must do something now, each of us, to release ourselves from the grasp of those who wish to continue down this path of ignominy.

If we act now, in a decisive way, with our voices unified, I predict Obama’s defeat. He will continue to fall in credibility and Romney will win in a landslide barring any ‘shenanigans’. Therefore the challenge before us is: “what are we citizens to do as the nation continues to decline in power, its financial stability faltering, its culture and morals in free fall, and the security of its people in jeopardy”? What do we do to ensure a victory and get on a the path to reclaim our Republic?

In November, we have this historic opportunity. Mr. Obama, the great reader/orator, continues to show his socialist and deceptive agenda of spending the American peoples’ money first and misleading our country down a path of continual destruction instead of curtailing the cancerous cause of over-spending, rabid regulations, and class warfare. Their “do or say anything” methodology means we must be must be alert. We must be quick to respond to each and every attempt to mislead, demagogue, twist facts, lay blame, cast aspersions, assassinate the character of others, and point out the obvious, outright lies from Obama and Biden, along with their surrogates. He only has an abysmal record to run on, so the mud will be flying.

Mr. Obama’s only identifiable skill is campaigning and this week he will have the grand stage at the Democratic National Convention. There he will be on his best ground, amongst his adoring sycophants; the very place he shines best. There will also be the cacophony of the complicit media; supporting his agenda, his mischaracterizations, his ‘cult of personality’.

He will continue to promote his great “heroism” in taking out Osama Bin Laden but may well execute a rumored “October Surprise” (possibly in the Middle East, or a contrived event at home, all to try and snatch the election). Our OPSEC “Dishonorable Disclosures” documentary has been very effective in getting out the word about National Security leaks coming out of his administration and placing American lives in jeopardy.

Obama and his amateur political cronies must be replaced. We need the people to stand up and make sure this happens. The economy is severely fragile and the feasting at the government trough is at an all-time high. The main stream media sees the obvious political advantage Obama seeks but appear to be clueless on the realities of the moment.  Obama and company choose to make a mockery of our system, again and again. All the while, Obama still places blame on Bush, the Congress as if it was a monolithic block, the private sector, and others for his dereliction of duty and lack of leadership seeking re-election and not working to fix America.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and the perverted radical Islamists here and abroad are playing out their moves on the Chessboard very judiciously, seeking the domino effect of radical Islam, the caliphate, and Jihad.  The United States finds itself languishing in a ‘Sea of Ambiguity’ because of a lack of vision, wisdom, common sense, and courage of our elected and appointed leaders, or more dangerously, they have a clear agenda to do harm. We have a President in the White House, A National Security Council, and State Department under Hillary Clinton, and the Defense Department that seem to be as “clueless” as ever in forward strategic thinking. It is time to drain the swamp.

This is the current battle that we Constitutionalists face and we must be aggressive in our efforts, as we adhere to our Constitution ourselves. If re-elected, Obama and the people in his progressive agenda will continue to bypass Congress because that is who he is and that is what he believes he has the power to do. He will do so with an unfettered hand, without fear, because he and the left, along with the media, will declare a mandate if re-elected.

Now it is time to shake off this power grab. It is time change the people within this government – because they are not doing the job we hired them to do. When an employee is inept, unsuccessful, and failing in his duties, he must be replaced. When he is doing worse, tearing down the very foundations that created the job he holds, replacement is just the beginning. The job has just begun – it is then time to rebuild that which has been torn down.

Lincoln issued this warning in his first inaugural address:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one. This is a most valuable and sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”

We are a representative republic; not a democracy, where “rising up” means other than revolution by use of arms; the people must “rise up” now. (Stand Up as we say) We must educate ourselves and others, and vote from a knowledgeable, informed base; a base that is not reliant on personality, but the skills of the employee. We must rise from the grass roots across this great country as we think of the greater good of this and future generations.

We must make it a local and State imperative; a now or never movement –  “Of the People… By the People… and For the People.”

The Obama White House and identifiable Members of Congress are now on a treasonous death march and are bankrupting the country beyond expectations. We have watched them violate their sacred oaths of office. This means raising your voice now to your neighbors, family, co-workers, and friends. Grass roots efforts have begun; we were successful in 2010, but it is now time to put this effort into over drive. America, stand tall together and we will weather the storm – but we must act now!

“We, the People” have had enough.

_________________

MG Paul Vallely, US Army (ret.) is Chairman of Stand Up America

Edited and posted by Scott W. Winchell

 

NBC – Zero Black support for Romney, Black Conservatives respond

Editor’s Note – When does a media outlet approach a zero rating itself? NBC sure comes close, especially when their poll shows that Romney has ZERO support from the black community. Makes one wonder how not even one black American supports Romney according to NBC, truly mystifying.

What is more believable is that not one NBC employee likes Romney, or any conservative!

Well black conservatives are speaking out! Grab a camera and a recorder NBC – these are black people too!

From the Blaze:

A whopping 0 percent of black voters support Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, if you trust the accuracy of a new NBC/WSJ poll.

While it isn’t surprising that President Obama leads Romney among black and other minority voters, the assertion that the GOP candidate has no support in the black community is hard to swallow.

NBC News breaks down the numbers from the poll:

Obama continues to lead Romney among key parts of his political base, including African Americans (94 percent to 0 percent), Latinos (by a 2-to-1 margin), voters under 35-years-old (52 percent to 41 percent) and women (51 percent to 41 percent).

Romney is ahead with whites (53 percent to 40 percent), rural voters (47 percent to 38 percent) and seniors (49 percent to 41 percent).

And the two presidential candidates are essentially even when it comes to the swing groups of suburban voters, Midwest residents and political independents.

Read the rest here.

Black Conservatives Speak Out After NBC/WSJ Poll Shows Black Support For Romney At ZERO

By “The Rat” at Mikes Right Blog

Remember the last presidential election in Iraq under Saddam Hussein? It was a nail-biter: Saddam won: 100% – 0%. As unbelievable as that seems, it’s happened again – right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Yep, according to a poll conducted for NBC/WSJ, zero percent of blacks in America support Mitt Romney. Not 5% – or even 1%. 0%. Zilch. Zip. Squat. Amazing, huh?

These people are a figment of your imagination

So, the question arises: In order for 100% of the findings of this poll to be correct, 100% of the polling data needs to be correct, right? (Even if we assume Romney is supported by less than .005 blacks and the number was rounded down.) Therefore, we shouldn’t be able to find any black supporters of Mitt, right?

Being the superb investigative conservative political blogger that I am, guess what? I found some. After the poll’s findings were released, Twitter and Facebook were abuzz with comments from – wait for it – black conservatives! A sampling:

I hesitate to bust out the “R” word – given that we’re accused of it from the Left on a daily basis, (just yesterday for me, in fact), but is it not racism to virtually ignore the existence of a group of blacks – simply because they’re conservative? Is it not racist to relegate them to zero in a nationally-conducted poll? Doesn’t it say, “You don’t exist, and even if you do, you don’t matter – you’re zero.”? This non-existent black conservative said it best:

Listen, I’m not suggesting that Mitt Romney will get anywhere near 10% of the black vote; as I’ve said before, O could declare himself a communist, paint the White House black and set George Bush on fire, and his support among blacks would “plummet” to 85%. What I am saying is this: For generations, blacks have sought an “equal voice” – an opportunity to  ”just be heard.” Apparently this only applies to liberal blacks. After all, if you’re black and conservative in liberal America – you’re zero.

Come to think of it, if you’re black and conservative in liberal America, you’re worse than zero; you’re a traitor.

Rhetoric, context, meaning – where's the truth?

Campaign Contexts: The Kitchen Table Issues

By  – American Spectator

We know the mess Obama has made of them. But what about Romney’s understanding?

We’ve heard a lot about “context” lately. It’s the first refuge of a scoundrel: what I said doesn’t mean what you think I said if you take it in context with everything else I said, whenever I said it.

But there’s a second part of the “context” issue, and it’s more important than the first. The second part is the context placing what politicians say into the issues that are in voters’ minds. How far apart is the rhetoric from what people really care about?

No longer does anyone claim the “context defense” for Joe Biden. When Mr. Biden he speaks, there is either no context at all, or there are so many unrelated concepts strung together that no one can keep track of them. Biden plays with words like a musician who changes the key he’s playing in three times in the course of one song.

Case in point: last week, Joe started with an accusation that Romney and Ryan would “unchain Wall Street” and ended the same phrase (sentence? paragraph? Who knows?) by telling an audience (about of which half were black), “…they’ll put y’all back in chains.” Only Joe would string together an accusation the first half of which is class warfare and the second half is the threat of a return of slavery. Rudy Giuliani had it about right in saying Biden evidently lacks the mental capacity to serve as vice president or president.

The context defense is the media’s favorite to explain away Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment, which is the sum total of his total faith in government and his rejection of free market capitalism. For the record, here’s the entire quote:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The full quote doesn’t change the meaning of the excerpt. Obama clearly said that government, not smart, hard-working business people, is responsible for the success of businesses large and small. This is a kitchen table issue. Small business owners, such as Mr. Chris McMurray of the “Crumb and Get It” bakery in Radford, Virginia, understand that. Mr. McMurray declined a visit by Mr. Biden and his entourage because of Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark, noting that his wife had just worked twenty-four hours straight.

Mr. McMurray understands that people expect that America’s economy is supposed to reward hard work and initiative. It’s an issue that is worrying a lot of Americans this year and not only because of Obama’s remark. Our economic system has been fundamentally changed in the past three and a half years by Obama’s spending, by the enactment of Obamacare (which gave the government control of about 16% of our economy) and by the over-regulation of our economy by Obama’s federal agencies.

Kitchen table issues such as that are the real context of the presidential race. And neither candidate has boiled his messages down to explain how they will solve these issues.

It’s not simply “the economy.” The economy is an amorphous concept that people think about only in terms that affect themselves. To boil it down the candidates have to reduce it to those terms: how to bring unemployment down, how to revive the housing market, how to make gasoline and other forms of energy cheaper and how to make Social Security and Medicare solvent.

And the kitchen table issues go beyond the economy. They are about how to preserve personal freedom that is under attack by the government everywhere from the entry gates at airports to the ability of businesses, both small and large, to function in the overburdening regulatory environment. They’re about how all Americans will be able to afford and obtain the best medical care. They’re about how sequestration may cost one million defense industry jobs and why Obama’s Justice Department is suing Ohio to block early voting for military members. And it’s about voters’ growing distrust of the gatekeeper media who are spending each day proselytizing for Obama.

Romney says the answer to unemployment is to spur economic growth by relieving the regulatory burden and reducing tax rates for business and individuals. But he hasn’t explained how that will work, or explained the many economic studies supporting his idea. Obama attacks Romney’s plan, but hasn’t presented any new ideas. He’s still insisting on more spending, more debt, and that tax hikes are the answer.

We know — from the Social Security and Medicare Trustee’s report — that Medicare Part A is bankrupt now and Part B will be bankrupt as early as next year. Social Security will be bankrupt about ten years later. Both Obama and Romney are now arguing about whether senior citizens will be hurt by Romney’s plan, which is written to prevent anyone over 55 from suffering any reduction in benefits. No one — except Paul Ryan — is talking about how to make Social Security and Medicare solvent.

Romney spent most of last week trying to differentiate his economic plans from Paul Ryan’s specifics. Going into the Republican Convention next week, he needs to be able to explain a unified, simple plan that he and Ryan can run on. He needs to say, specifically, how he will balance the budget by the end of his second term. Both men need to stay on the attack against Obama’s commitment to government solutions to every problem we have.

In an August 12 editorial the New York Times wrote of Paul Ryan’s budget, “By cutting $6 trillion from federal spending over the next 10 years, he would eliminate or slash so many programs that the federal government would be unrecognizable.” But isn’t that the point of this campaign? We’d love it if the government as it now stands were cut back to the point that the liberals didn’t recognize it.

That’s a promise to make, and to keep.