Huntsman as President?

Should we be wary of Jon Huntsman? Yes. Here's why.

Townhall columnist Byron York mentions Huntsman's support for cap and trade and civil unions as troublesome for fiscal and social conservatives. But, so does Mitt Romney, one of the early frontrunners for the GOP. What's different about Huntsman? York points to the company Huntsman keeps:

Huntsman's top campaign aide is John Weaver, who was John McCain's top campaign aide in 2000 and in the early stages of the 2008 campaign -- campaigns that often raised the ire of the GOP base. (Weaver has also worked for some Democrats.) Other McCain veterans have signed on with Huntsman, as well. Still others, like Mark McKinnon -- the aide who worked for McCain in the 2008 primaries but left because he did not want to campaign against Barack Obama -- also favor Huntsman. (McKinnon is a co-founder of the "No Labels" movement, much derided by conservatives.)

Important? I think so. Remember the 2008 campaign, when asked what an Obama administration would be like, Obama replied, Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself. What we got was a group of czars drawn from the Progressive extreme left who have been busying themselves releasing a veritable avalanche of new regulations.

So, what about Huntsman?

Huntsman, in addition to unwisely supporting cap and trade legislation as governor, has associated himself with the Obama administration as an ambassador, and has formed a campaign team drawn from a liberal GOP group that advised not only McCain but also Democrats (Weaver) or were sympathetic towards Obama (McKinnon).

So it is apparent Huntsman is surrounding himself with people who are to the left of the GOP and—using the yardstick mentioned earlier by Obama—we can reasonably expect a Huntsman administration to promote policies reflecting that leftist bias; definitely not what this country needs.

The AARP is at it again

You've probably seen the television ad by the AARP accusing Congress of funding a treadmill for shrimp while cutting Medicare. Even Social Security.

Well, it seems the ad is a little loose with the facts. The shrimp treadmill was funded by the National Science Foundation—an agency in the Executive branch—and not by Congress.

It's ironic that the very people that accuse the Republicans of scaring Seniors engage in that very activity.

UN Effort Jeopardizes Second Amendment Protections

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has been pushing an international regulation variously known as the Firearms Protocol or the Small Arms Treaty. The stated purpose of the Protocol is reducing the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms. The supporting arguments made by the UNODC sound okay on their face but represent a risk to our rights under the Second Amendment. To see why, here is an excerpt from a recent UNODC document outlining the goals of the Protocol with the phrases highlighted that provide an opening for abuse by the Executive branch:

6. As the only global legally binding instrument on firearms, the Firearms Protocol establishes a global framework for States to control and regulate licit arms and arms flows, prevent their diversion into the illegal circuit and facilitate the investigation and prosecution of related offences by means of the following: (a) preventive and security measures establishing proper marking and record-keeping systems and a strict transfer control regime based on government authorizations/licensing for import, export and transit, in order to facilitate traceability throughout the lifetime of a firearm; (b) criminal provisions establishing specific offences and measures to prevent the diversion of arms into the illegal circuit, providing for the seizure and confiscation, deactivation and destruction of firearms, and provisions aimed at facilitating criminal investigations and prosecutions; …

The risk is ratification of the Protocol will be used to make gun ownership much more difficult and that 'unauthorized' guns will be seized and destroyed, in effect accomplishing an object that the Supreme Court has so far prohibited.

Needless to say, treaties such as this, imposed from the outside, are not in the best interest of US citizens. Our rights as citizens are protected by our Constitution and nothing coming from the UN should be allowed override those protections.

Now, since this is a treaty, the Senate plays a pivotal role in deciding whether it is or is not ratified. I have written to my Senators recommending a NO vote if and when the treaty is presented to the Senate.

Mitt Romney as President?

That would be a catastrophe.  Here's why:

(Reuters) - Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

We sorely need the next president to rein in the EPA with its onerous 'greenhouse' gas emissions regulations. It should be obvious that, with his oft stated beliefs on the topic, Romney is not the man for the job.  Not only that, Romney is apt to continue the the energy policies of the current administration; yet another reason to reject a Romney candidacy.

We have already seen what can happen when the GOP nominates a wishy-washy candidate; namely, John McCain.  A Romney candidacy would eclipse even that disaster.