A Quick Correction

In my last post I stated that the San Bernardino attacker, Tashfeen Malik, was not interviewed before being allowed to enter the United States. A good friend of mine (who is in the know) pointed out that this was incorrect, so I did some additional research. Here is what I found.

1.  Malik was attempting to enter the United States on a K-1 "fiancé visa." She did not meet her husband in person before being allowed to enter. The initial reports were that Malik was not interviewed. This report stemmed from statements made to Congress by Leon Rodriguez, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. According to Mr. Rodriguez: "We only interview people in the K-1 Visa program where there is some issue that needs to be explored." He also reported that Malik's application did not "raise any red flags," so he could not say whether she was interviewed.

2.  Malik was in fact interviewed. The agency official who interviewed Malik followed the standard protocol, including a mandatory interview. Malik was asked a series of questions designed to test whether she actually knew her future husband, or whether her application was a sham. She passed two additional mandatory background checks, as did her future husband.

3.  Malik was not asked about radical social media posts or her Jihadist leanings. There are two reasons for this. First, her application did not raise red flags, so no further inquiry was deemed necessary. Second, social media postings are either "off limits" or "rarely checked" for K-1 applicants, depending on which anonymous administration official is providing the story.

Final Thoughts

There is room for disagreement about whether our immigration system is robust or broken, efficient or inefficient. I am, however, less comforted after doing additional research. Rather than circumventing our immigration system as I originally stated, these terrorists actually followed the procedures to the letter (aside from lying about their intentions). That fact reminds us of the Bush era mantra: "We have to be right 100% of the time. They only have to get lucky once." There is little doubt in my mind that our brave men and women on the front lines, both here and abroad, are doing everything in their power to prevent another attack. There is little doubt in my mind that additional, likely worse attacks, have been thwarted. But, the terrorists got lucky and Americans were attacked. More Americans are likely to be attacked. If we can provide more resources and a better framework for those on the front lines, we will have a better outcome. The future of our nation depends on it.

Closed Schools are Just the Beginning

Merry Christmas. We can all rest easy now. The anonymous email, sent through secure servers in Germany, threatening to blow up schools and assault them with armed men, was a hoax. That silly school superintendent who shut down all the schools in Los Angeles overreacted. Let's move along, there is nothing to see here.

Or maybe is there...

Even a superficial analysis of last week's "hoax" should cause us to be deeply concerned. For starters, if it were not for the L.A. Superintendent closing the schools, we would never have known about the threat. Millions of parents would have sent their children to school unaware that someone was threatening to blow them to bits. Think about that for a second. When someone phones in a bomb threat to a courthouse, it is evacuated. When someone phones in a bomb threat to a school in the ordinary manner, it is evacuated. When someone says "I have a bomb" on an airplane, it is immediately diverted to the nearest airport. When someone says "bomb" in the security line at that same airport, they are tackled, arrested and detained indefinitely. Yet, when someone uses encrypted servers to threaten school children in metropolitan areas, the FBI, DHS and President keep it to themselves. Because, somehow, they were absolutely certain that it was a hoax. It's a good thing they were right. Otherwise, they would have been entirely responsible for the consequences of risking your child's life without your informed consent.

It is absurd. It is the obvious politicization of our safety and the safety of our families. Our government does not want to "cause panic" by keeping us informed. This is obviously because they think we are too childish to handle the truth about bombs, and threats, and encrypted servers and terrorists. Let us revisit the past few years.

Obama withdraws from Iraq and ISIS takes form. It rapidly spreads across the Middle East using organic messaging, social media and violence. At the same time, our borders are wide open as a mass migration from South and Central America overwhelms our border enforcement. We have no idea who came into this country or who continues to come into this country undetected. "Mass shootings," according to the left, have become commonplace. ISIS sleeper cells, communicating with the Islamic State, shoot up Charlie Hebdo in France and then, a year later, assault Paris, killing 150 people. Social media messages from the Islamic State warn that America is the real target and "blood will be spilled." Several weeks later, two Muslim terrorists who conspired to defeat our weak immigration laws, take to the streets with assault weapons, kill 14 people and wound 22. It would have been much worse but for the fact that a SWAT team just happened to be training for such an attack two miles away. We know these Jihadis were trained overseas and were waiting for the right time to strike. They sent 105 encrypted email messages to the Middle East the morning of the attack. In other words, it was planned. 

We are vulnerable and we have been for years. Only a complete idiot would choose to believe that terrorists are not, at this very moment, dreaming up new and horrifying ways to kill our children in schools, night clubs, movie theaters, shopping malls and churches. Only an idiot. The Los Angeles "hoax" has revealed to us exactly how vulnerable and unprepared we really are. The truth is, we have no idea when or where the next attack will come from. We cannot possibly say for sure whether something is a real threat or a hoax, or a serious attempt to probe our readiness. Our readiness is pretty much at level zero. 

More frighting, however, is lesson number two. Our government is still living in denial. It's one thing for our citizens to go about their daily lives with a false sense of security. It's something entirely different for our professionals and leaders to ignore the obvious and deceive our citizens into believing that we are, mostly, safe.

Let's be extra clear about this. We have been at war with Jihadism for the better part of thirty years. That conflict has certainly become more intense over the past few years, but it is not a new conflict and terrorist tactics have not changed. They will hit soft targets. They will target our loved ones because they cannot fight a traditional war. They will use dirty weapons and dirty tactics. They will personalize the fight and try to bring it right to our doorsteps. They have no moral limitations, and they can be fairly characterized as evil. It is also worth keeping in mind that they are extremely violent, having demonstrated a level of brutality not seen since the Middle Ages.

In my last post, I suggested that everyone should arm themselves and prepare for a fight. That's good advice in normal times. But, in these perilous times, where we know our government will conceal threats from us, where we have no idea where or when or what our fight will be, where the consequences of living in denial are so extreme, it is more than just a good idea. It is our patriotic duty. 

Naïveté Will Obliterate The West

It was bound to happen and it did. Al Qaeda was a dramatic departure from the ordinary terrorist group. Al Qaeda chose large targets with the intent of putting on a big show. We were caught off guard in 2001 by their tactics and the sheer scale of the attack because, to that point, terrorism was bombs in trash cans, or a couple of shooters in a bar in Israel. After 9/11, most experts were shocked that the successful high intensity attack was not followed by low level, more traditional attacks. Each Christmas, security experts held their breath, wondering which shopping mall or which school would be the target of a low-intensity attack by Jihadis looking to keep Americans home and, over time, disrupt the American economy. Those attacks never came.

For almost a hundred years, the chosen method of attack by terrorists has been exactly what happened in Paris yesterday. A small group of well organized Jihadis with automatic weapons launched a coordinated attack on soft civilian targets. The reason these attacks are so effective is because they are easy to plan and execute. Coordinating the hijackings and subsequent disaster of 9/11 is a disaster of great proportion, but it is also one of low probability because there are so many moving parts. In contrast, shooting up a school or a nightclub is easy. Psychotic teenagers do it in our country on a regular basis. Gangsters in Chicago do it nearly every week. All you need is a commitment to die and a gun.

The attacks in Paris were predictable and have been predicted for more than a decade. We should be prepared in this country for similar attacks, especially given the porous borders and relatively easy access to firearms. But it is also that easy access to firearms that could be the difference between Paris and a humiliating defeat for the terrorists. Before 9/11, we were all taught to wait for help during a crisis. If there's a hijacking, wait for negotiators and other professionals to save you. If your home is invaded, call the police. If someone tries to kidnap you at gunpoint, just go along. Help will be just around the corner. What we learned from 9/11 is that, sometimes, there is no help. Sometimes, your attacker is so depraved, so determined, that you will die whether you resist or not. In a post 9/11 world, we defend ourselves first, and train our professionals to then follow with extreme determination of their own. 

Terrorism has fundamentally altered our lives, whether we are willing to admit it or not. Each generation faces its generational challenge. For my grandparents, it was World War II and the threat of Nazi Germany. For my parents, it was the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation. For my generation it is this. And no one will save us. We will have to save ourselves.

On the policy front, we must resolve ourselves to fighting Total War. Total war is something I've written about before. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-obsession-with-limited-war-leads-to.html. (Click link to read). It is the difference between defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in four years, and losing to a group of Jihadis in Iraq in 10, or losing to a bunch of starving Vietnamese in 20. There will be collateral damage and that is very sad. But, at some point, we have to confront the Hobbesian choice between our wives and children, and theirs. That is the same choice my grandparents had to make to defeat the Axis Powers in World War II. Many Japanese died. War is horribly tragic. But if you do not defeat your enemy, they will defeat you.

On the home front, we need to arm ourselves. Admiral Yamamoto famously told the Imperial Counsel that Japan could never "defeat" the United States; that attacking America would "awaken a sleeping giant," and was inadvisable. When asked why he was raining on the war parade, he responded that "there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Yamamoto, although his nation was defeated, was one of the greatest strategic minds in history. We should learn from his warning. 

Our greatest asset as a nation is our people. Our enemies see us as soft. They are wrong. Just like Japan did, they conflate our lack of interest with a lack of resolve. We are very slow to anger, but once there, we are merciless. We are armed and we can be trained. Almost every state now allows some form of concealed carry, and there is no shortage of firearms enthusiasts or gun shops that will help you get trained. Paris doesn't happen in a place where three armed terrorists are confronted by fifty armed and trained citizens. Yes, there is risk. Yes, there may be unintended deaths and injuries. But, if we've learned anything from Paris, it is that in that situation, you are already dead.

What will defeat us, however, is naïveté. We simply cannot close our eyes and hope that it won't happen here. It will, and you will know someone who was affected by it. There is no amount of magical thinking that will save us. Terrorism isn't motivated by "offensive internet videos" or our support of Israel. Radical Islam is tyrannical and would exist regardless of our conduct. It is also, like Imperial Japan, made up of fanatics, committed to dying in battle. We have two choices, kill or be killed. It really is that simple and we should be thankful that it is so clear. We can confront it and defeat it, or we can wish it would go away, and be obliterated by it.

Common Core Inculcates The Rationalism Of The Political Class

When does 8+5=11? Only when "8" isn't "8," "5" isn't "5" and "11" is merely an interpretation of what could be the right answer under the right circumstances. Like Bill Clinton's inability to define the word "is," and like George W. Bush's affinity for "fuzzy math," we now can conclude that "is" means "could have been" and "bailout" means "loan." The only way to preserve such nonsense in a common sense society is to teach it to our children.

It is an unfortunate reality in modern times that the political class is allowed to make up its own reality. A brave Delta Force officer dying in a gunfight is not "combat" and his unit's presence in Iraq during a rescue mission is not "boots on the ground." Ex-Communicated political operatives like Sid Blumenthal sending advice emails to Hillary Clinton is not "advising" the Secretary. Using the power of the IRS to "target" political organizations is not "targeting political organizations because of their political beliefs." Whatever your political persuasion, you can find a myriad of examples of politicians straining reason to create the political reality of their choosing. It is common core. It is the tool of the political class to shape the narrative in a way that avoids absolute truth in favor of their version of events. And now they saddle our children and us parents with their twisted reality.

8+5 is 13. It will always be 13. It will never be 11. This is a universal truth so common at its core that we used basic mathematics to communicate as we launched a probe into deep space hoping some intelligent life would be able to conclude that we are also intelligent. To channel Ayn Rand, "A" is "A". It is not "B." Rand was not unique in her belief either. The concept dates back to Aristotle's "Law of Identity." Put simply, a thing is what it is and is not something else. A leaf is not a stone. A stone is not a horse. A horse is not a tree. There exists no level of perception that will make it so.

However, we now live in a society so deconstructed that somehow it is normal to talk about absolute truths as mere opinion, as if everything in the universe is defined by a simple matter of perspective. For the political class the truth is often inconvenient, so the truth must be obfuscated.

The political class, you see, is so used to being allowed to define its own reality that the idea of absolute truth is a threat to its very existence. Lies are now so commonplace that "spin" is euphemistically used to explain every inaccurate statement from every political operative appearing on television or in print. One's "opinion" is now a substitute for the facts and, as the electorate becomes wise to the game, something has to be done to preserve the Establishment's right to lie. 

Defining your own reality has long been a privilege of the rich and powerful. If you do not want to serve in Vietnam, you buy your way out. If you do not want to go to jail for banking fraud, you buy your way out. If you do not want to be held to account for violating someone's civil rights, you buy your way out. Morality has nothing to do with it. It is always about who you are, what you have, and who you know. The solution is never groupthink, or standardization, or a national curriculum. It is independent thought.

Common Core was bipartisan legislation, as was No Child Left Behind. Whenever I see bipartisan legislation I always ask myself, "what do they hope to accomplish with this"? We should all be suspicious of any legislation that garners the uniform support of the political elite. It is almost certainly something that is beneficial to them, unless you still believe that the political class cares about your individual problems. To acquiesce is, ordinarily, just an acceptance that you are not in power and it is natural for those in power to abuse that power. However, Common Core affects our children and we cannot accept it. This muddled thinking, particularly in mathematics, will create in our children an inability to discern reality from fantasy - just as it was intended to do. 

The proponents of Common Core defend it by redefining it as a vehicle to higher standards in primary school education. Admittedly, "higher standards" sound like a good idea. But, if those standards rob our already underactive children of an active, healthy childhood, then they are insidious. I remember my parents having to help me with homework every once in awhile, but not on a regular basis. I remember, as I'm sure most of you do, having several hours before dark to do homework and still play outside. Parents now are faced with helping children on a daily basis with homework assignments even we cannot understand.

America has enjoyed the largest economy and the most powerful military, cultural and political influence ever in history. One would have to go back to ancient Rome to find a nation as hegemonic. Yet we pretend that it is our educational system that is somehow crippling our ability to compete with China or India. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is our values and our natural instinct to innovate that makes us great. It is a culture of hard work and our traditional emphasis on entrepreneurialism that has made us who we are. It is our traditional belief that "truth" and "equality" are tangible things and not mere ideals that has guided our nation to prominence. Moral equivalency and deconstructionism are the antitheses of our founding principles. An abortion is an abortion. You can have differing ideas about whether it should be legal, but you cannot redefine into something it is not. Taxing is taking something from someone else for the "greater good." You cannot redefine it as "investment" and pretend it is not a taking. A bailout with taxpayer money is a bailout with taxpayer money and cannot be redefined as a loan. Marriage is marriage and cannot be redefined as "civil unions." Combat is combat and cannot be redefined as "advising." Fall where you like on the issues, but no reasonable debate can be had without all parties first acknowledging the basic parameters of the debate.

We must demand that the political class admit 8+5 equals 13. Until we do, the Bushes and the Clintons of the world will continue to destroy our nation with the false promise that, this time, 8+5 equals 11.

For Hillary, The Question Remains: "Is She Above The Law"?

After eleven hours of testimony before Congress, there was no question, Hillary dominated a feckless and disorganized Republican Party. In fact, the entire week leading up to the hearing, including hyper-partisan statements and shameless leaks of new information, highlighted the stunning lack of leadership in the House. The Special Committee on Benghazi, was assembled by House leadership after two previous committees (also run by Republicans), completely failed to gain any insight into the horrific events of September 11, 2012. Hillary Clinton's total domination of Republicans last week perfectly illustrates the reasons for the current leadership crisis in the House. The only remaining question is whether she is above the law.

Against the backdrop of the various Benghazi committees, the FBI has been conducting a serious investigation into Secretary Clinton's treatment of classified information. This is the same FBI that indicted former CIA Director, David Petraeus, on a single count of the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. For those of you who are not familiar with the case, General Petraeus  removed a classified file containing information about him and placed it in a desk drawer where his biographer and mistress viewed it. This is also the same FBI that surreptitiously hacked Fox News Correspondent, James Rosen's, personal emails, ostensibly looking for evidence that he was a "co-conspirator" with a source critical of Administration policy. The warrant was issued under the Espionage Act, it was improper, and the FBI dropped the investigation after the public outcry.

Hillary Clinton, in contrast, had more than 300 classified emails on a personal server located in the basement of her home, and these are just the emails that we know about now. The information contained in those emails ranges from confidential discussions with heads of state to information so sensitive that it is now classified as "Top Secret" and redacted. There is now also conclusive evidence that foreign intelligence agencies not only knew about her personal server, but also attempted, perhaps successfully, to hack into the system. If true, it would represent perhaps the worst breach of U.S. security since the 1980s.

Clinton's only defense is that the information on her server was not "marked classified." While that argument has some surface appeal, the law clearly does not draw a distinction between information that is marked or unmarked. Information is classified first and marked later. It is not classified because it is marked as such. The law is simple and clear. Anyone who retains or transmits classified information except as authorized by the Act, is guilt of a felony. The "authorized" retention of classified information does not include an unsecured personal server in one's basement. It also does not include the transmission of classified information to and from an unsecured personal server in one's basement. Finally, one is not "authorized" to transmit classified information through an unsecured personal server in one's basement to people like Sid Blumenthal, who incidentally was banned from the administration by President Obama himself.

If the evidence shows that Secretary Clinton did the things of which she is accused, she should be indicted. She should be indicted the same way everyone else is indicted for the same or similar misconduct. "So what, she was the Secretary of State," one might say. Well, General Petraeus was the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and the Director of the CIA. He was indicted for a comparatively minor violation so, to the extent she is treated differently, it will be because she is, quite literally, above the law.

This scene has played out before, most recently with the IRS targeting scandal. Just this week we learned that Lois Lerner, who admits she deliberately targeted conservative groups seeking tax exempt status, will not face any criminal charges. This is notwithstanding that she admits to the targeting and shortly after the story exploded, proceeded to "recycle" all of her electronically stored information. Nothing will happen to her, and she will be allowed to retire with her full pension. Given the current politicization of criminal law, it seems even less likely that the Democratic front runner will face anything more than the inconvenience of having to explain herself to a group of hapless Republicans on the Benghazi Committee.

This is all the unfortunate continuation of our current national Zeitgeist - the political class vs. the rest of us. We the people are in a vicious struggle with the political class for freedom and equality under the law. Whether it is the Black Lives Matter movement, the Tea Party movement, or the rise of political outsiders like Trump and Ben Carson, Americans appear to be fed up. We all know that when the average Joe gets in trouble with the law, he faces a life changing series of events. Sometimes he does not even survive the initial confrontation with a militarized police force. But, we also know that when a powerful corporation, or a Senator, or a Secretary of State, or one of their fund raising buddies violates the same law, they face nothing. The Political Class avoids criminal penalties, jail, and even civil justice. If you do not agree, ask yourself: "How many bankers went to jail after wide spread mortgage fraud led to the 2008 financial collapse"? Or research for yourself how many major corporations have actually been put out of business because of egregious criminal, civil, or regulatory misconduct. BP destroys the Gulf of Mexico for three years and pays a fine. A small rancher in Wyoming builds a rainwater pond to feed his livestock and is put out of business by the EPA with $75,000.00 a day in fines. It is the little people they attack, and they attack us because they can.

Hillary Clinton and her personal email server are the litmus test for the future of America. Will she be held to account, or is she above the law? My money's on Clinton.

Putin's Gambit, Revisited

This was predictable. In fact, I predicted it, and I'm neither an expert, nor alone. (http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/putins-game.html). 

Today, Vladimir Putin's Russia commenced airstrikes against both anti-Assad and ISIS forces in Syria. Shortly before the airstrikes began this morning, a three star Russian general appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and demanded to speak to the military attache deployed there. In what was apparently a heated exchange, the Russian general hand delivered a verbal order from Putin. U.S. forces are to cease Syrian operations. 

Apparently, the Obama Administration had no idea this had happened or that it was coming, notwithstanding the fact that Putin met with Obama in person two days ago. AP reporters on the ground in the Middle East had to awaken U.S. officials and alert them to the development. The Administration once again proved that it is asleep at the switch, literally.

Putin intends to keep Assad in power, as he no doubt promised to do when the two met early last year. He also has substantial regional support from Assad's allies. Shortly after Obama inked the Iran nuclear deal, Iran's top general traveled to Russia and met with Putin. It has only been four weeks, and in that time, Russia, Iran, Syria, and Shiite Iraq have formed a military alliance. Russia has now deployed attack aircraft, surface to air missiles, helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles, and about a thousand troops to Syria. If - and this is a big if - Putin is successful in defeating ISIS in Syria, he will have established a stronger foothold in the Middle East than we have.

Today also marks the first time since the 1970's that Russia has had a military deployment to the region. There is no doubt at this point that the United States needs to reinforce its weak position in the Middle East. We should have a large deterrent force in place in friendly countries, and we should redeploy to Iraq. Putin cannot be allowed to determine the fate of the region. We would almost certainly be on the losing end, as would our allies, and Israel in particular.

Nothing is certain, however. Not even for the great Vladimir Putin. Russia has now stepped into one of the worst quagmires in human history. The United States, a comparatively rich country, has spent decades and trillions of dollars trying to influence and control these countries. After near total failure, we decided as a nation to withdraw. We elected a President who did exactly that, damned be the consequences. Now it's Russia's turn. While I have no doubt that Putin will wage a much more direct and brutal war against the enemy, it will now be his nation spending the money, attracting the enemy's attention, and losing the soldiers. It seems unlikely to me that he will be any more successful than we were, but he has even fewer resources at his disposal. 

Russia's economy is about the size of Texas's. Russia's military, while huge, is poorly maintained. It possesses very advanced aircraft, but only about half are operational at any given moment. Most of its hardware is left over from the Cold War. More importantly, however, Russia is already overextended. It invaded Crimea and Ukraine. Both engagements were successful for Putin, but this invasion is qualitatively different.

Crimea and Ukraine border Russia. Syria does not. A significant portion of Crimeans and Ukrainians wanted to be part of Russia, and Russia has historically occupied both countries. By contrast, the Syrians already hate Assad and are unlikely to find Russian occupation any more palatable. In fact, Assad is neither a Sunni nor a Shia. He is an Alawite, which is itself a minority of the Syrian population. Choosing an unpopular dictator as an ally to establish your foothold in the Middle East invites defeat. That, combined with the remarkable tenacity of the opposition, will involve Russia in a much larger war than it is expecting. This is a concept with which Americans are all too familiar after decades of fighting Hussein, his army's remnants and then al Qaeda in Iraq. IEDs, roadside bombs, snipers, and extreme brutality await Russia and its soldiers.

And, to be clear, Russia will have to deploy ground forces. An airpower only strategy will no better work for Putin than it has for us. If Putin is serious about securing Syria, his nation will have to endure the same above-mentioned guerrilla tactics that we did. The Middle East cannot be won otherwise.

For better or for worse, the United States has been the dominant foreign influence in the Middle East since World War II. That has made us a target, it has cost us lives and money, but it has also ensured access to the world's most important strategic asset - oil. Until we do find a viable alternative, we have no choice but to continue protect our interest in an uninterrupted supply.

Winners, Losers, and Superheros From The Second Republican Debate

In case you missed it, it was a good debate. A strong field of Republican candidates, under a constant set of silly questions from CNN showed the world that they are the right party to be leading the nation. Everyone shined, but a few stars shined brighter. I'll get right to it.

CNN - Perpetual Loser

No one should be surprised that CNN, who once monopolized cable news, showed once again why it is now a marginal influence in the media. FoxNews failed too, but in a different way. Fox was narcissistic with the questions posed, and the personalities asking the questions were far more concerned with their own ratings than substance. CNN took media failure to an entirely new level by qualifying every single question with a perceived "attack" on the candidate. "Governor Bush, Mr. Trump has called you a fool and an idiot who supports murdering children. How do you respond?" No, it wasn't that bad, but you get the point. CNN - losers.

The Field - Winners

The Republican field was outstanding in this last debate. Each candidate seems to have settled in to his or her true persona. All looked very comfortable and no one took the bait when CNN's "second rate interviewers" (to channel Donald Trump) blasted them with ad hominem material. The maturity demonstrated by the candidates on that stage was exactly the maturity and skill we expected as Republicans when the campaign began. 

Home Run Hitter - Carly Fiorina

Just wow. You could not find a more articulate, passionate, serious conservative in this race. And she's a woman. Not that I am personally surprised by that. I surround myself with strong women and I was raised by a strong woman. I am exceptionally pleased, however, that we have such a serious and conservative candidate, capable of articulating conservative principles in a common sense way, who doesn't feel the need to talk about her gender. She is a superstar. When given the opportunity to pander to women, she politely declined, reminding the voters that women are actually the majority in this nation, and they are not a "special interest group."

She has no weakness that she cannot explain. She is obviously exceptionally competent at running for President. She was well prepared and, unlike most of the other candidates, she was precise in her recommendations. When offered the opportunity to discuss military issues, she had obviously been advised by experts, and she took that advice. She knows what she wants to do, right down to the number of divisions of Marines, and how many ships we need in the 6th Fleet. Outstanding. She could not have been more impressive.

One final thought. She's received enormous criticism about her "severe demeanor." That is sexist. I'm a conservative and I hate political correctness. But I'm telling you, that is sexist. She does not have to smile, be "likable" or talk about baking cookies or serving her husband. All Republicans and true conservatives would do best promote her as a fantastic candidate without regard to gender-specific issues, her appearance, or her "likability." To do less is to prove that everything the Democrats say about conservatives is true when it come to gender issues.

Carly Fiorina is severe. And it is appropriate. We are facing severe problems and serious issues. I want a serous person to deal with those issues. I don't care whether she smiles. 

Home Run Hitter - Marco Rubio

Rubio continues to demonstrate that he has the most well thought out position on the issues. He is also articulate, serious and a true conservative. He possesses a clarity of thought that the other candidates seem to lack (except Fiorina). He knows his own mind. His positions are well developed. As young as he is, he is a superstar and would make an excellent President. There is a plain honesty about him. When you listen to him speak, you just know he is being genuine - the same way Obama was and is genuine. The difference is, Obama is wrong on the issues and Rubio is not. If the Establishment wants to save the party from Donald Trump, they need to give up the Jeb Bush fantasy and throw their weight behind him.

Strikeout - Donald Trump

There is nothing wrong with supporting Donald Trump. You are not a bad Republican, bad person, neophyte, or loser for liking him. Trump best articulates the anger and frustration that the rank and file in the party feel. He is a showman and he pushes all the right buttons. But...

I had a conversation with a very well informed, intelligent friend about Trump. He articulated a number of solid reasons to support Trump. But there's one question that has to be answered about him before we make him President. Is he competent? 

Donald Trump had and still has no idea who the second tier global players are. He knows who the Ayatollah is, but he doesn't understand the interplay between the religious fanatics in Iran, the Russians, and the Kim cult in North Korea. He still does not know who the Quds are, even though he was called out in a radio interview two weeks ago on that very issue.

The worst moments for Trump in the debate were a result of the same shallow thinking he's demonstrated throughout this process. He was pressed about his comment that Fiorina's "face" couldn't get elected. Fiorina owned him in that exchange and he knew it. He didn't "win" that exchange, she did. His original comment was inappropriate and his attempt to redefine his comment was contrary to his "straight talk" persona. 

Then, having not learned his lesson, Trump lobbed some insult at Rand Paul about his looks in another exchange. Let's be realistic about this. Rand Paul is a fit, distinguished looking man. Carly Fiorina is a fit, attractive 61 year old woman. Donald Trump is married to an Eastern European supermodel who he left his last young wife for. "The Donald" is not fit, he is follicly challenged, and he is shorter than his opponents. His attacks on others about their appearance demonstrate both superficiality and a complete lack of physical self-awareness. They also reveal his own insecurities. The fat man calling a woman ugly is either a pig or insecure about his own appearance. Strike three.

Most Improved - Chris Christie

Christie had a good night. He had a few bad moments, but over all he was most improved. He didn't need to accuse Fiorina of interrupting him. He didn't need to lean so far forward on his podium, and he needs to lower his voice. That said, he is much better at articulating his positions than he was a month ago. He also did a much better job explaining his record in New Jersey. After his first debate, I was ready to write him off. His performance was just poor. After this debate, I think he is back in the game. He seems to be better at articulating conservative values and he is definitely doing a better job connecting with blue collar folks than the other candidates. 

The Elephant - Jeb Bush

The Republican Establishment is terrified. They are so scared that they sent the head of the RNC to Donald Trump's building to basically beg him not to run as a third party. What a farce. What a weak play. What a bunch of self-serving pansies. The RNC doesn't have the strength or courage to put forward a candidate compelling enough to castrate a political dilettante like Trump. It is pathetic. Of course, this is what we've come to expect from the RNC and the Republican Establishment and it is the reason they are losing the primary.

Jeb Bush is still the elephant in the room. There are candidates in the race who would be acceptable to the Establishment. But so long as Bush is in the race, he sucks up all the resources, most of the Establishment media attention, and is the best organized candidate because, well, the Establishment supports him.

Jeb did well. Someone clearly told him that he needed to man up and start acting like the blue-blood, third generation power player that he is. Trump can insult him for his low energy, but Bush knows everything there is to know about government, defense, foreign policy and war. His brother was a two term President and his father served one. They both went to war and they both won. I have to admit this, if the country were attacked tomorrow, I would probably vote for Jeb. I want the most competent, connected person with the best relationship to other experts to guide the country through the crisis. Taking a chance on Rubio or Fiorina or Trump would be unsettling under those circumstances. So, Jeb survived another debate. Good for him. He'll be the nominee if he makes it to the Convention.

The Uninspiring

Among the ranks of the uninspiring were Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. Dr. Carson just remains a fish out of water. His is obviously brilliant but he seems to lack the passion and the experience to be President. He seemed out of touch or just plain wrong with some of his responses, in particular his statement that he would not have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.

Huckabee just seems to me to be yesterday's news and too reactionary. Spending three minutes of his precious time defending a Kentucky Clerk who refuses to provide marriage certificates, is three minutes lost. It's just not the most important issue in America.

Rand Paul continues to be one of the most important influences in the Republican Party. His libertarian views and his ability to clearly articulate those views have begun to frame the debate on a number of key issues. Unfortunately, he just cannot gain traction in a large field of candidates.

Finally, Ted Cruz. He sounds like an evangelical preacher in a mega church on Sunday. He can be talking about military deployments and he still sounds like a preacher. I don't like being preached at, and I suspect most other Americans feel the same way. He's a strong conservative and there is a long way to go in the race, but he's going to have to do more to separate himself from the pack.

The Dark Horse - John Kasich

There is no candidate more misunderstood. Even Fox calls him a "liberal" Republican. It's just absurd. I've been following politics closely since 1992. John Kasich won his first House seat in 1994. He tirelessly led the Republican party, as a freshman, through a government shutdown that resulted in a balanced budget. It was the first balanced budget since before World War Two. That is a major accomplishment and exactly what we need as a nation now. He has never done anything to make me thing that he's a "liberal." To the contrary, he is a strong advocate of tax reform, he is a fiscal conservative, and he is exceptionally competent. He'd make a great President and he did well in this debate. Again, however, until the field narrows, he will continue to be overshadowed by the louder candidates.