By Lance Thompson

In 1972, in response to rising crime and public unease, the Neighborhood Watch program was inaugurated. It united private residents who shared the same street in an organization to benefit all. Neighbors would meet regularly, discuss issues, resolve differences, support each other, and organize to report suspicious or criminal behavior, and make clear to local criminals that they were under observation. Not every resident joined, but those who did contributed time and effort toward a common goal–to rid their neighborhoods of drug dealers, thieves, armed robbers, murderers and rapists. Cooperation between citizens and police yielded results. Neighborhoods were cleaned up, criminals driven out or incarcerated, and law-abiding families thrived.

One variation that was never tried was inviting local criminals to attend Neighborhood Watch meetings, to open a dialogue between law-abiding citizens and those who prey upon them. It was never suggested that criminals vote on various issues that come before Neighborhood Watch committees, nor were criminals ever given veto power over any measure or activity of the Neighborhood Watch volunteers. Criminals were always the object of Neighborhood Watch associations, but never members.

In 1945, in response to the devastation of World War II, the United Nations was inaugurated. It united fifty nations who shared the same planet in an organization to benefit all. National representatives would meet regularly, discuss issues, resolve differences, support each other, and organize to make clear to leaders of aggressive, dangerous nations that they were under observation. Not all nations were members at first, but those who were contributed blood and treasure toward a common goal–to make the world safe from dictators, tyrants, and bullies.

But the members did not in fact share a common goal. Member states included democracies, tyrannies, rogue states and terror sponsors. Nations that sacrificed to make others free sat at the same table as nations that were dedicated to genocide, slavery, and oppression. Measures to curb the aggressive acts of some nations were voted down or vetoed by the very nations who were committing or encouraging the acts.

It is impossible to imagine members of a Neighborhood Watch program inviting the participation of the very criminals they organized to oppose. If criminals did join, the whole purpose of the organization would be compromised. Law-abiding citizens would have three options–accept the fact that the organization is hopelessly flawed and corrupt, expel the members who act against the interests of the group, or start a new organization which would admit only those opposed to crime.

The United Nations faces the same choice. With voting members which include rogue nations, sponsors of terrorism, and bastions of oppression and genocide, and countless unenforced resolutions, the United Nations is hopelessly flawed. With revelations like the Oil for Food scandal, it is also demonstrably corrupt. Thus, we are already living with the first option. The second option–expelling members who support, sponsor or commit evil against other nations–seems impractical given the circumstances of the first option. The third option remains–a new organization of states that have fought against the global threat of Islamofacism, are dedicated to its total defeat, and are willing to pay the price. Those are the requirements of admission. No others need apply.

The United Nations is not an organization for world order, but a tool used by the enemies of freedom to subvert, delay, or avoid actions that constrain them. Freedom-defending nations must band together in an effective organization with a true common goal. Or, we can stand idly by, keep going to meetings, and one day we will shake our heads with regret and say, "There goes the neighborhood."

In the 71 years since the United States ended World War II by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, no nation has employed nuclear weapons in combat. The wisdom of that restriction bears re-examination.

During the immediate post-war years, when the United States was the sole nuclear power, nuclear restraint by the United States served as a noble example to all nations. When the Soviet Union and Communist China acquired nuclear weapons, their nuclear options were proscribed, first by the superiority of the American nuclear arsenal, and later by the perilous "policy" of Mutally Assured Destruction.

The United States also led in the effort to limit nuclear proliferation. Though our nation all but forswore the use of nuclear weapons, the knowledge that we possessed them, had used them, and could deliver them anywhere in the world discouraged other nations from competing with us in the nuclear arena. Considering the availability of nuclear technology, technicians and fissionable material, the nuclear club expanded at a glacial rate.

But the refusal of the United States to employ nuclear weapons, even in the face of mounting casualties, reversals and provocations in numerous conflicts, sends a very different signal to the rogue nations now scratching at the nuclear door. North Korea recalls that we settled for a stalemate when we last waged war in that country rather than utilize the weapons that easily could have turned the tide. Now North Korea has nuclear weapons of its own.

We permitted Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, agreed to a perpetual occupation of Cuba by a cruel dictator, watched Communists sweep a wartime ally off the mainland of China, all without using our most powerful weapon. We chose to withdraw from Vietnam after ten years and thousands of casualties and allow a Communist takeover rather than employ nuclear weapons in Southeast Asia. We did not oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, we did not bring overwhelming force to bear when Iranian terrorists invaded our embassy and imprisoned our citizens, we withdrew from Lebanon when Hezbollah killed American Marines in Beirut.

When our country was attacked by Al-Qaeda, we responded with conventional warfare in Afghanistan and brought democracy to a country that never knew it. When we believed Saddam Hussein was acquiring weapons of mass destruction, we did not employ our own against him–we chose the much more costly and less destructive course of regime change and nation building.

Rogue nations studying our recent history would be justified in believing that the United States will never employ its nuclear arsenal, that our nation has limited patience for any military commitment, and that dictators are free to pursue whatever weapons they choose. Would North Korea be firing missiles at Hawaii, would Iran defiantly build a nuclear arsenal with the explicit goal of destroying Israel, would terrorist groups be planning and plotting our destruction if they really believed we would respond with overwhelming force?

The argument will undoubtedly be made that our use of nuclear weapons, no matter how well justified, will break a sacred precedent and set a horrendous example other nations are sure to follow. But our exhortations to limit the spread of nuclear weapons are less and less effective as time goes on. Twenty years ago, world leaders recognized that resorting to nuclear weapons was a near-suicidal act. But that cold calculus that calibrated the balance of power is a level of mathematics far beyond the leaders of today’s rogue states who have demonstrated little regard for the welfare of their own people, let alone the citizens of other countries. When they acquire nuclear weapons, there will be no constraints.

By Simon Pedenko

Beginning in March 2006, and following the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, the media pundits have presented us with a short list of possible candidates who may take a stab at the Republican nomination for President of the United States. The roll-call consists chiefly of John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, George Allen, Bill Frist, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Mitt Romney.

Assuming this early slate of candidates remains intact after November, the mainstream media will erect roadblocks and create pitfalls using a gale force of opprobrium that will cut away the dead wood in short order. Public relations spin machines designed to soft soap a candidate's record or personal history have been relegated to tools of the past. This is why we Republicans should be relentless when it comes to vetting our own candidates.

A Hard Look at Our Potential Candidates

The results of the June, 2006 Gallup Poll listed the top three “you would most likely support for the Republican nomination” as Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Newt Gingrich, garnering 29%, 24% and 8% respectively. Nearly identical results were obtained in the Cook Political Report, the Diageo/Hotline Poll and the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. One concept can be gleaned from these numbers: the country is either suffering from selective memory or the shortsightedness of name recognition. By way of example, the top three candidates stand tall with Bill Clinton when it comes to past philandering. Why do we bring up these indiscretions? Because the media will soon be serving them up as an example of the hypocrisy of the Christian Right.

The Nixon/Clinton years left us a bitter legacy that begs compromise, so we reluctantly accept flawed characters. It is time for us to extricate our heads from the media quicksand and choose leadership that cannot be divorced from our moral values or we undermine our best hopes for the office of President. The next occupant of the Oval Office cannot be "second best." Now—not a year nor 18 months from now—is the time to choose our next leader, and make certain he is the best choice.

It is not our intention to damage or undermine a candidate's aspirations to the presidency. However, we are determined to remain objective and faithful to the truth regarding a candidate's character and integrity. The information that follows was culled from public record—all big stories in the years between 1995 and 2005.

The "Newt Defense" will rise again to overshadow the excellence of "Winning the Future" by casting gloom over Mr. Speaker's "present." The skeletons in Newt's closet play like a soap opera for those of you who have been living in blissful ignorance. It seems odd (yet not altogether irrelevant) that 1997 was a watershed year for media-driven stories about teachers having illicit relationships with their students (e.g., Letourneau/Fualauu). Yet that was Newt's introduction to the world of complex relationships. Wife number one (his high school teacher) was replaced (while in a hospital recuperating from cancer surgery) with his mistress. Eventually, she became wife #2, and in due course, replaced by his third (known) mistress, the current Mrs. Gingrich. It is unnecessary to expound on sordid details because they will surely be reiterated by the MSM, together with other scandals during his tenure as Speaker of the House.

During his term as Mayor of New York, and prior to 9/11, Rudy Giuliani made no qualms about being seen in public with his mistress (the current Mrs. Giuliani), while his then wife sat (disgraced) in Gracie Mansion. This will undoubtedly be brought to the fore, in addition to the fact the former Mrs. Giuliani had been his mistress prior to their marriage as well. Add these indiscretions to his present business dealings with the Mexican Government, both conservatives (already bogged down with an illegal immigration muddle) and liberals will have a field day.

Following his release after 5-1/2 years as a Viet Nam POW, John McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their children alone during his confinement. The second (and current) Mrs. John McCain was embroiled in a huge controversy over an addiction to drugs illicitly obtained from her own non-profit medical relief organization. Since 2000, a roller-coaster of controversial positions within his own party have unfortunately left this maverick Senator with the label “Republican in Name Only.”

To date, none of these men has formally announced his intention to seek the Republican candidacy. So we ask, did the events of 9/11 cloud our memories to the point where all else seems trivial? Liberal pundit Steve Benen wrote in a recent article, "Together, they form the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history." Hang onto your seats ladies and gentlemen. This trifecta is in for a bumpy ride.

Trailing in this race to the start, are Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Sam Brownback and Governor Mike Huckabee. The controversies surrounding these men are readily accessible online. Suffice to say, after studying their self-proclaimed comparisons to Ronald Reagan or fair weather allegiance to George Bush, it makes one long for another jar of jelly beans in the Oval Office instead of the imaginable spittoon.

As with any group, there is always one who stands above the fray. In response to the recent Big Dig collapse in Boston, Governor Romney stated, “A new era of reform and accountability at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has begun. Patronage will be replaced by professionalism, and secrecy will be replaced by openness.” These potent remarks are what we want to hear from a new leader. We must seek candor for the highest office in the land, particularly since secrecy and lack of openness have consistently plagued the current administration.

The fact Mitt Romney is a Mormon does not negatively influence us. It is trivial compared to the events that are shaping and reshaping our world from minute to minute. Perhaps it will ensure that Republicans retain the high moral ground. However Mr. Romney chooses to express his faith is his, and his family’s, private business. We are not scrutinizing his spirituality, only his capacity to become the next President of the United States. There is no time to second-guess. There is no time to play the “maybe” card with any other candidate.

We are being frank when we say we respect Mitt Romney. Why? He comes from a distinguished political family. His roots are in politics and he has the present advantage of being the Governor of Massachusetts in a race where, historically, more Governors than Senators have ascended to the Presidency.

Mr. Romney is pro family, pro life, and pro traditional marriage. He has been married to the same fine woman for over 30 years, throughout which no scandal has ever been connected to his name or position. Mr. Romney does not deliver double-talk. This is a man who looks you straight in the eye, speaks without hesitation, and delivers his own honest responses. He speaks from his heart with a confidence that comes from years of experience and knowledge of his subject.

We have looked long and hard through the corral of possible candidates. Mitt Romney is the only one we come back to again and again. We believe serious attention must be paid to him. We believe he possesses the political and emotional wherewithal to handle the impossibly difficult job of President of the United States in this impossible world.

©Simon Pedenko 2006