You have some good ideas there. I think the political wanna be’s should start reading up on the pulse of the nation via such silly games as these. I particularly liked your #6, make it so terrible to wage ware on the US, or our friends as to be unthinkable.

Left by TF Stern on August 24th, 2005 at 2:43 pm

Thanks TF…I borrowed my #4 from your list. But it would have been on the top of mine even had I not read your list first.

I have long been a very harsh critic of the UN and the US’s involvment in that sorid organization.

I also agree (strongly) with you about pulling the rug out from beneath the feet of the “envrionmental” lobby.

Left by Robbie on August 24th, 2005 at 5:53 pm

Who would be your Vice President?

Left by dianne on August 26th, 2005 at 5:32 pm

That means US National Guardsmen (armed) and US Soldiers if necessary will guard our borders from illegal entry. If we have to build a wall along the entire 1500-mile border, we will.

It’s a shame you didn’t even have the resources to build a good wall around New Orleans. Further, the National Guardsmen and US Soldiers are mostly all overseas right now, making the New Orleans cleanup extremely difficult.

Isn’t George Bush now welcoming ‘illegals’ with a new working visa structure so that ‘they can do the jobs Americans don’t want to do’?

Work to abolish the IRS and the current tax system in favor of a simple, no-loophole flat tax.

If you did that, you would be doing what no OECD country would dare to do in terms of the evolution of the modern, civilised, humane welfare state as a cap on the excesses of the market. This would lead to the rich getting richer (who already have far more than they need, particularly in the US, to live a comfortable life), and the poor getting poorer. It could well lead to a people’s revolution before very long, an outcome I don’t believe you’re after. I think wiser heads will prevail in governments to come.

Thin out the Federal Government by paring down cabinet-level departments not having to do with foreign policy, security, and defense — such as HUD, Interior, Education, Labor — by as much as 75%.

That just depends on whether it’s too bloated or not by international comparisons. There is a time for healthy blood-letting in over-large governments. However, anti-Federalism for its own sake is rather meaningless and ungrounded, possibly based on a forgotten mistrust of King George III. I would have thought domestic concerns such as health, housing and education were fairly important also for the well-being of the nation.

No specific country has attacked you, although you have attacked numerous specific countries in the last 60 years. (Except for a small representation from your oil allies, the Saudis, in Yemen.) For instance, did Vietnam ever declare war on the US?

Immediately withdraw the US from the United Nations, to include funding and participation with those theiving [sic]bastards. We know who our alies [sic] are, and we know who will stand with us when push-comes-to-shove (nod to the UK and Australia).

The old Anglo-American bloc, eh? I’ve long advocated moving the UN headquarters to somewhere like Paris, away from the political heavying of the US in its policy making, because it is significant already. (I attended a talk only last week by 2 Australian ex-diplomats from the UN on what really goes on.) I have dual citizenship in both Australia and the UK, and I don’t really need the nod – I’ll take my chances. Note that involvement in the Iraq intervention was heavily protested by the people of the UK and Australia, who are concerned about being coerced into such activities for the sake of appearances.

Announce that it is the opinion of the executive branch that eminent domain for conveyance to a private entity violates the Constitution, and that property owners’ rights to their homes in such situations will be defended by all necessary federal law enforcement means.

I though you hated the Feds and wanted to abolish their domestic programs (something about drowning in baths) – no need for an enforceable, consistent, national rule of law.

I would make the cost of waging war against the United States too high and costly for any country or the terrorist cells they host and support. If your country attacks the US, we will respond without hesitation or mercy. Yes, I’m talking about big, big bombs pouring into your capital cities.

hmm, some of those countries already feel looted for national energy resources, in a ‘core-periphery’ model of post-colonial exploitation. Perhaps resentment at the lack of redistribution of the wealth of those countries fuels internal anger. A little like your ’straw man’ anger at nations that haven’t even done anything, such as those without WMD and no terrorist campaigns at all that have been invaded.

Yeah. I know that’s six. So what?

I dunno. Bad math to go with the bad overall education and awareness?

Left by Sean on September 4th, 2005 at 4:22 am

It’d have to be a Texan. It would have to be somebody who served active duty in the US Military (with an honorable discharge, obviously).

They would have to be pro-secure borders, pro-choice, and support the war on terror.

I’m taking applications now.

Left by Robbie on April 18th, 2006 at 1:17 pm