Does anyone remember the first Barack Obama? He was a liberal elected in 1976 after the Republican party took its last big electoral hit before this one. His name of course was Jimmy Carter. With a wave of high popular support, Carter took steps in both domestic policy and foreign policy that proved devastating to our economy and changed the balance of world power. While the results of Barack Obama's policies are not in yet, one wonders if similar actions don't beget similar results. But one thing is certain: Iran has been a thorn in our side since 1979.

Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to fall, which changed the political landscape of the middle east to this day. As a result of this poor foreign policy decision, we have had to deal with a hostage crisis that engulfed our nation's consciousness, a scandal that almost took down last century's greatest president (Iran-Contra was the result of an operation to undermine the radicals in Iran so as to bring the moderates to power. Because Congress wouldn't allow President Reagan to fund the contras, the contra project was brought under the covert umbrella and an improper co-mingling of funds occurred that would not have occurred if Congress allowed us to be open and honest about our support for the Nicaraguan contras. This congressional stupidity also blew the lid off the Iran operation.). And of course we bring this into the modern day where Iran, now being run by one of the hostage takers from 1979, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is poised to have nuclear weapons.

All of this happened because of liberal foreign policy. With Obama as president, we can expect this type of foreign policy to continue.

Suggesting that we have talks with Ahmadinejad or that we shift our stance toward Iran is going to lead us further into a mess. While the United States has achieved great foreign policy victories in the Cold War, Iraq (both Gulf I and II) and even Vietnam, which became an ally of ours rather quickly after the Cold War, we have failed miserably under all administrations since 1979 at getting Iran to operate in a civilized way.

We will pay for this with a war that could have been fought earlier and at much less a cost. If we assume that President Reagan did everything he could to convince congress to fund the contras and that the botched Iran-Contra project was an unavoidable collateral effect, then our only opportunity to fix Iran was right after 9/11.

After having taken out the Taliban, we should have moved through Iran (destabilizing it and putting it into the hands of moderate students) and THEN went into Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein. That would have solved the problem. George W. Bush may have let a good crisis go to waste, as Rahm Emanuel would say.

But now, the only choice is allow Israel to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities and for the U.S. to step in to defend them when the rest of the Middle East decides to attack them in response. We will have to bring the might of our military to the table to stop Syria and Iran from forming an alliance for the purpose of invading Israel. It's either that, or the worst case scenario where Iran and Israel end up in a nuclear exchange.

Dick Morris and Ellen McGann on DickMorris.com wrote "In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu will also be watching to see how Obama and Clinton react. He will want to know if there is any starch behind America’s demand that Iran stop its own progress toward the bomb. If the Obama Administration folds, he will know that he must depend on his own military to act, even in the face of global anger, since the United States will be paralyzed as long as Obama is at the helm." (Editors note: thanks to Sarah Palin who recommended this article on Twitter.)

Basically, our choices are limited. Since nuclear bombs going off in the Middle East is not in our best interests, we are probably looking at another conflict that will cost American lives and will raise the ire of the Muslim world once again because the U.S. will either be weak or be forced into a military solution as part of its Iran policy. If the current policy doesn't change and we don't support Israel, Obama will have the dubious distinction of being responsible for nuclear bombs being used.

The answer to how to DeNuke Iran is a painful one. Breitbart.com presents an analysis where N Korea widens threat, limits US options.

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke by phone Monday to her counterparts in Japan and South Korea, and she planned to speak later with the Russian and Chinese foreign ministers in what Clinton spokesman Ian Kelly called intensive diplomacy in response to the North's nuclear test."

 

This could be Obama's first major foreign policy test. Or this may end up being the next Republican president's Iraq. Obama doesn't have the stomach or many options for the action needed. But more importantly, he doesn't have too many options for the consequences of his Iran policy either. Does our nation and the world suffer human casualties now to stop a nuclear holocaust or do we have greater human casualties later? Someone is going to have to make the call as to when we go in, whether it is to assist the Israelis or to clean up an atomic parking lot.

From President Obama on down through the left wing of the American political spectrum, the dismissive tone toward the Tea Party movement is far beyond being outrageously offensive. It is a completely unAmerican dismissal of a segment of the population who work hard, pay their taxes, have families and express a willingness to participate in the political process of this great nation. The discourse in this country prior to the liberals gaining power was hostile at best and has only grown worse with their empowerment. I'm going to point my finger here and in a lecturing tone tell you liberals from the president on down to grow up and recognize that there is a large segment of the population who disagree with the government's tax and spend policies and that while noone is expecting you to agree with us, we expect you to hear what we have to say and respect our disagreement.

 

We are not "teabaggers," an offensive term describing a sexual act. We are taxpayers.

 

Kiran Chetry of CNN, a fine journalist with an exceptional talent for interviewing, had James Carville on the show American Morning today. While I am going from memory (since a transcript of the interview is not yet available), I first want to commend her on the fine way she questioned Mr. Carville. But, when Mr. Carville described Tea Party participants as just a bunch of "angry tea baggers," the anger part got worse. I recognize Mr. Carville is a partisan Democrat. But if I described the liberals of MoveOn.org as sexually deviant baby killers, I'd be laughed off the air. And so should you, Mr. Carville.

 

If Chetry only had more time to ask one last question: "despite your disagreement with the Tea Party movement, wouldn't you describe the use of term "teabagging" as offensive?"

 

So let me ask that question and let me put it straight to the left wing movement in this country: we are unhappy taxpayers. We were not angry in the way you describe us. Tea Parties are peaceful protests, unlike some of the nonsense we witnessed during the Vietnam War from the left. We simply wanted to state a case. And now that you won't listen to us, we are angry. We're more angry now than we were on April 15, 2009. We're not mad that you disagree with us. We're mad that you don't have the tea bags to enter into a productive dialogue with us.

 

As a result, we expect the Tea Party movement to grow louder and bigger in numbers. Do you understand, left wing, that all these "teabaggers" will be voting your nasty miserable little butts out of office in 2010 and 2012?

 

Democrats, you can tone down your rhetoric. Republicans, you need to get in touch with us.

 

The political parties need to do some research online and find out that we are big voting block. Rush Limbaugh may not speak for all Republicans, but he speaks for most conservatives. And conservatives make up the biggest wing of the Republican party. The liberals listened to their left wing, we expect Republicans to listen to their right wing.

 

Those who will be running for governor and congress will be hearing from the Tea Party movement at the ballot box. Let's just say, dismissing us is incompetent political strategy.

 

The Republicans have announced that the National Council for a New America "will bring together citizens from across the country to begin a dialogue with the American people through a series of forums, town halls, and an online effort that will engage people in a discussion to meet our common challenges and build a stronger country through common-sense ideas." With this, I have prepared my ideas and vision for how the Republican party can rebuild its brand and bring more people into the tent.

The modern Republican party was at its strongest when it stood for fiscal discipline, personal liberty, family values, free markets and a strong national defense. During the 1980's, we had the biggest peace time growth in our economy and fought strongly against the rising growth of government. As a responsible citizenry, Americans recognized the U.S. Constitution and the intents of our founding fathers when they supported the shifting of governmental responsibles not afforded to the federal government by the Constitution back to the states and the people by voting for Republican candidates.

Today's Republican party is in a fantastic position, despite its recent loss and the short term popularity of the current Democratic administration, because it is the closest in line with the model of how our government is supposed to be run out of all political parties. Our government was not meant to be placed into the hands of special interests or a popular mob, but to be guided by a federalist balance where a central government limited to the powers assigned to in the Constitution could be assisted and balanced by the states and the people to whom the remaining powers were distributed.

Our system of government was not designed so that one political party could assume all of these powers for itself. Political parties evolved as a means whereby people could disagree on issues peacefully and compete fairly within the arena of ideas so as to foster an intellectually fertile debate designed to reach consensus and conclusion on matters of law, policy and leadership so that those who be chosen to run for office would be properly versed in all opinions of national concern and properly supported by the citizenry.

Once an individual won election to a national office, the founders intentions were that it would be their primary pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This pledge implies that personal interest, the interests of the groups who support them and any philosophy that they bring into the office with them would be secondary to and limited by this oath.

The Republican party's primary function is to stand for the foundations of the republican form of government as established in our founding documents. As a republic, the United States of America is to be governed not by the changing winds of popular opinion or tyranny of a momentary majority, but to be governed by a rule of law which protects our fundamental freedoms and liberty.

The Republican party's next function is to promote a forum by which matters of individual issues and policy can be implemented after being both tempered by the limitations and separations of power as outlined in the Constitution and after being properly debated and discussed. In doing so, it differs with opposing parties on matters of issues and policy by forming its opinions and arguments based on the intent of our country's founders as stated in our founding documents and their speeches and writings.

In order to champion the representative form of our government as it is written in our founding documents, The Republican party is at a moment in its history where it has to communicate and put forward an open and honest agenda whereby all citizens can participate in a continuation of the representative republican form of government that is the social contract we as a nation have bound itself by.

The Republican party is interested in expanding its membership not by taking in selected groups who belong to specific ethnic, religious, class, gender, moral or sexually oriented persuasions, but by recognizing that all people are created equal by their Creator and that their thoughts about how our government should be run transcend these marginalizing descriptions.

In the big tent that the Republican party opens to the body politic, entrance into the arena should not determined by race, gender, sexual preference or whatever group that an individual may identify themselves with, but rather by one's willingness to accept our Constitution for the words by which it stands. The party, therefore, should not favor any ideology over the ideology of liberty and limited representative government. Most of all, the party should recognize that the primary function of the federal government is to provide for national defense, promote (don't mistake this word for the word "control") an environment that ensures the welfare of its people and regulate interstate commerce. That's it.

In the coming days, months and years of this country's election cycles, the party should recognize that its opponents will take issue with party members regarding platforms and positions. The party should look to encourage those who differ with its positions on the traditional definition of marriage, religious freedom, protection of the unborn, love of family heritage, the use of firearms for personal protection or locally regulated sport and how to use public money for agendas related to the poor, the environment and the underpriveged to recognize that the role of the government is not to advance these views at the expense of other groups, but to protect the rights of those who hold these views as equally as it would protect the rights of all citizens.

Most of all, the party must favor the U.S. Constitution as the framework for its philosophy on how government should formulate policy. As such, bills and agendas that move toward changes in public policy should be judged law worthy based not on whether we agree or disagree with the opinions of their supporters, but on how they are viewed in light of the Constitution and the intentions of our country's founders.

For example, I believe the BCS college bowl system is wrong because it doesn't allow for a true playoff system to determine a champion. Yet, I don't see it as the government's role to use anti-trust law to ram my opinion down the throats of colleges and bowl game organizers who may see this as a threat to their ability to fund their event. As such, the matter should be left to the colleges and teams of people who organize bowl games each year. They should seek the input of the fans and agree to alter the system through consensus without the need for the taxpayers money to be used to choose a winner on the issue.

The Republican party is not about creating a theocracy, oppressing minorities, discriminating against gay people or compromising with economic systems that stifle free enterprise in the name of bi-partisanship or world status. Our system of government was founded so that those who believe in God, family values, free enterprise, strong national defense, personal protection, life and liberty could live freely, unencumbered by an intrusive government whose values differed from theirs.

 

For those who misperceive that the Republican party is about forcing political and social views onto those who have alternative opinions and lifestyles, it should be clearly explained that the Republican party is a party of tolerance that is opposed to those who are intolerant of it, not the other way around. It's not about the ability of one group to impose their values on another. It's about the ability to prevent one group from imposing their values on another.

The Republican party can be an expanding tent party by advancing the sweeping philosophy that government's primary role is to protect the rights of people from all races, sexual orientations, religions, financial status' and family heritage because it is not a party of special interest agendas, but a party of strong national defense and limited government.

Centrists, independents, libertarians and conservatives all benefit from the Republican party's belief in limited government and strong national defense. The goal of the party is to provide a political forum in which the ideas of governing are properly discussed and debated so that a consensus can be formed as to how our government can perform efficiently and fairly so as to perpetuate and maintain an environment in which all citizens can freely pursue happiness responsibly.

The party should reach out to young libertarians and those who may be swayed by misrepresentations about the party as being intolerant or bigotted by getting them to understand that the left wing establishment looks to control them and the media lies to them.

They should be encouraged to do their own independent research and learn what the Republican party is really about. Obama won young people by a large margin in 2008. Young people by nature don't like to be told what to do. Why not tap into that feeling and convince them that big government nanny state politics is not in their best interests?

 

Republicans should learn strategy lessons from the left, not policy. "We need to be smarter about how we deliver our message and adopt the playbook essentially that's has been owned by the left -- about how we build grassroots movements using new and innovative technology standards," Republican consultant and former executive director of the Republican Governors Association Phil Musser told CNN. Bob McDonnell, who is running for governor of Virginia has emphasized "the new media" of blogs and social networking sites as part of his campaign strategy.

How does the party combat concerns about social value issues? Very simply. Republicans have values. The party is not about discriminating against those who have different values, it's about stopping them from discriminating against us.

Social issues are an important part of how we structure our society, but they are also derived from the freedom of man. Therefore, the Republican party must articulate and effectively advance a philosophy that focuses on a strong national defense and fiscal responsibility first and foremost because noone's right to their views on social values can be preserved right or left when the country is broke, under attack or occupied by a foreign power.

For those who may disagree with conservatives within the Republican party on social issues, consider this: your right to participate in the expanding tent is not infringed on by social conservatism, it's infringed on by national defense liberalism, fiscal irresponsibility and intrusive government. While social conservatives believe in traditional values, they also believe in limited government. The best way to conduct discussion and come to consensus on social issues is to have that discussion protected by fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense and a limited government.

The role of the government should be seen as similar to that of a referee in a sporting event. It should not favor one team over another, nor should it allow the game to be played differently from the rules which were agreed upon before the game began. It should protect citizens from harm to person or property, not inflict such harm or allow such harm to be inflicted.

Many of the social issues that affect our country today are not caused by government as much as they are perpetuated by government, which in many cases mandates solutions which are worse than the problems they think they are solving. Government should be about working with the states and the people to resolve the issues of abortion, gay marriage, single parenthood and pop culture's depiction of sex and violence. Government should not be in the business of choosing winners and losers, it should be in the business of choosing consensus and providing solutions.

Finally, for those who may think they are not compatible with Republicanism, consider this: everyone benefits from a system where you are free to pursue your lifestyle or your definition of of happiness as long as you are responsible and respectful of the interests of those around you.

The Republican party should strive for the day where what you do in your boardroom, bedroom, church, school or community center are no longer national political issues, but matters to be resolved within the state, city, town, local community or family. The government's role is to step in only when these matters threaten life, property or an agreed upon community standard.

The choice of candidates in elections should not be based upon what they want the government to do, but how they want the government to oversee what's being done. Big government happens when the government becomes the advancer or detractor of a cause. Limited government happens when the government provides the proper forum for free people to advance or detract a cause.

Ultimately, these principals will strongly contrast the Republican party with the Democratic party, demonstrating intellectually and by action that regardless of where you stand on a particular issue, the actual mechanisms of government as defined in the U.S. Constitution and by the intentions of our founders, your freedoms are much better protected by the Republican philosophy, making the party's tent a better place to bring your ideas for discussion and implementation.

The person who leads the party, whether they be the party chairman or the de facto president by election to the U.S. presidency, should always be an individual with a purist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the precedents and intentions established by those who crafted it. The party leader should never feel he or she needs to stray from a core principal of the party to win popular support in an election. Rather, the party leader should be skillful in bringing people into an environment where their causes or needs can be addressed in a constitutionally suitable way.

The party leader should recognize the voices of the people who build it through the grass roots, through their institutions and think tanks and the time and money they spend on advancing the cause of freedom and liberty. The Declaration of Independence and the reasons for forming the union should be the party's primary ideology.