There is no point in telling Mitt Romney what to say or how to say it. I just hope he will remember some the following foreign policy issues:

• The expansion of Al Qaeda and its influence in the Arab Spring.
• Fast & Furious as gun control policy. 
• Events in Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt. 
• Our alliance with Israel
• Iran's nuclear ambition-Is it true, Mr. President, that you recongnize Iran's right to nuclear technology? 
• The importance of fossil fuel in America's national security.
• Support for oil exploration in South America and the prevention of exploration here. 
• Our influence in the UN and the world at large. 
• The importance of trade deals in our favor. 
• Reinvigorated support for our traditional allies.
• Ask Obama what he meant when he told the Russians he'd be more flexible after he was re-elected?

Mitt should be on his guard against Bob Schieffer, who is decidely liberal and can be a slick customer with Texas drawl and softpoken manner.

Two Cents for Romney

Since everybody has advice for Mitt Romney I thought I would offer a little. The kind he is likely to get from someone more likely to be in the audience rather than behind the curtain. Your cause is a righteous one. America is not cruising along. It is in trouble of all kinds. It has national and international problems of all types and, disappointingly so, there is no leadership. In the absence of leadership, the vacuum will be filled.


• When questioned about the 47% Romney should explain that it is the 47% of the electorate that experts predict will vote for Obama. It does not include all those who receive government assistance, but it does include those who game the system and are really not paying their fair share. You cannot say people aren’t gaming the system. I do not know how much of the 47% are, but I bet there are some. When Obama asks for a number say "Your President, what do you think?"

• When questioned about the declining unemployment rate Romney should point out that it is still very high and that Obama promised it would be no higher than 5% if Congress passed the stimulus. He should add that experts say unemployment will not reach pre-recession levels until 2020 if we do not act.

• When questioned about Social Security and ObamaCare, Romney should point out the country wants to re-discuss ObamaCare now that we are finally learning what is in it, and that many of our Social Security and Medicare issues can be dealt with increased growth, which creates more revenue for both programs.

• When Obama brings up GM it should be pointed out despite the bailout, all the original stock and bondholders were wiped out and that after a little more than a year, its new stock has lost more than a third of its value, not to mention the mediocre success of the Volt, whose production is on and off like a water faucet. Romney should also remind voters of the federal stake in GM stock and how much of the loan has not been repaid.

• If Obama says Osama Bin Laden is dead, Romney should say that Al Qaeda is alive and well and demonstrating it for us all the time, most recently in Benghazi. Romney should also hold Obama accountable for the confusion and coverup between the White House, State Dept. and intelligence services.

• When questioned about energy Romney should point out the $90 billion has already been poorly spent on green energy and it is still in the research phase and not an adequate solution at this point. In contrast fossil fuel, produces the cheapest, most efficient energy and is one of the biggest commercial sources of tax income to government at all levels. The Keystone pipeline, fracking, drilling and refining are vital to our energy security and means millions of new jobs in the energy sector. Romney should point out that Obama's failure to approve Keystone and his failure to reign in the power of the EPA on oil leases and fracking on government property is hurting the nation. Energy security and self-reliance are attainable and laudable goals for our nation.

Good Luck, Mitt.

Bulletin: There will be no tax cuts

American taxpayers should prepare themselves for the worst. On January 1, 2013  there will be tax increases for everyone. The so called "Bush Tax Cuts" will expire and everyone's taxes will go up. This will occur no matter who wins the election. If Obama wins he will want it this way so he can continue to spend. If Romney wins the Democrats will want to deliver as much pain to the American people as they can as punishment for voting against them. There will be no grand bargain after election day. There will be no tax cut preserved for the middle class. There will be no budget. There will no spending cuts. Obama and Reid will make America pay through the nose. There will be a Continuing Resolution so that the Federal government can continue its reckless spending and maintain its trillion dollar deficits until the nation is bankrupt. The expiration of the tax cuts will ameliorate the automatic baseline increases for a little while, but the national debt will continue to grow, inching closer and closer to the $20 Trillion mark. In 2013, the American people will regret that the Bush Tax cuts were never made permanent.

Presidential Debates Need Moderator Balance

When the dates and moderators for the Presidential Debates were announced last week it was hardly surprising that every moderator was left-leaning. That is just how it is. We have come to expect it. There isn't even a pretense that fairness might be an issue. This year's Presidential Debate moderators include Jim Lehrer of  PBS, Candy Crowley of CNN and the Bob Schieffer of CBS, all three nakedly liberal and not a peep from anyone. After years of watching these three in action is there anyone out there who thinks that the questions will be from some other perspective than liberal? Is there anyone who thinks these three will not be phrasing their questions to give Obama an advantage? Is there anyone out there who thinks the Debate Commission should have done a better job? Well, I think so. I think they should be embarrassed at having chosen three such obvious water bearers for Obama to moderate a debate with his opponent. I bet if they had chosen Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity as moderators a lot of liberals would be pulling their hair out and screaming bloody murder. Of course, not even I would expect the Commission to do that, but it's not too much to ask for fairness. It's not that hard.

Why Lose When You Can Win

Can't Republicans be smart just once? Instead of going on TV and radio and declaring they will kill the Democratic Tax Bill passed by the Senate, offer up the Republican version of the tax bill and call for a conference committee? It seems like such an obvious solution. It doesn't prevent the Democrats and their MSM allies from portraying the Republicans as only interested in helping the rich, but it does take air out the argument because Republicans are willing to debate a bill and seek a compromise to the tax question. If it is true that the entire tax debate is a charade and nothing will be done anyway until after the election, why are the Republicans willing to lose this battle without a fight by killing the bill and giving Democrats an unnecessary and undeserved victory? Think it over Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cantor,  Mr. McCarthy; do you guys ever want to win?

Why Infrastructure Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs

It is the fashion of Democrats to rant and rave about the importance of highways, bridges and other infrastructure spending as way to boost the economy through government spending in times of economic troubles. The problem is that due to the way infrastructure construction takes place it often takes years for it to produce jobs and provide economies with a boost. In fact, money earmarked or budgeted for these funds now will not be spent for several years, because the actual building of infrastructure takes much longer than appropriating money for it. It often takes years of planning just to begin implementing the construction process. New York’s various bridges, tunnels and subways demonstrate this aptly. Many have been in the works for two decades or more and are still not finished, not because of money, but because of bureaucracy and the time required to complete infrastructure building. In addition, such projects do not create new jobs, as most of these are existing union jobs and often go to the same construction firms’ generation after generation. None of this is to say that infrastructure spending is not a good thing; it is. It is only to say the jobs are not provided quickly and any such statements made by politicians who would like to use infrastructure as a way to boost the economy quickly are blowing smoke and you know whose face it is being blown in.

Obama's EO on Immigration

In view of the hysteria being generated over Obama's Executive Order on Immigration there is a need to closely analyze the "new" policy. When analyzed it can be determined that the new policy is nothing but a holding order that has no power in law and can be overturned on a whim by a succeeding President or made moot by real legislation from the Congress.  Both the President and Homeland Security Secretary have noted the new policy is neither Amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. They referred to it as a two-year "deferment" policy that qualified illegals aliens can sign up for. The qualifications are rather narrow. In return they will not be pursued for deportation and may qualify for work permits. Hello; we have not been pursuing these non-law-breaking immigrants and they get jobs anyway. Our cities and states are filled with them. Some colleges and universities offer them in-state tuition discounts. We have "sanctuary" cities around the country that make homes for them. We already have legislation that provides a pathway to citizenship for illegals who serve in the military. So in that sense the order offers nothing new, but has been made to sound as if it is groundbreaking. It amounts to nothing more than a public relations gimmick to fool Hispanics into voting for President Obama in return for his "gift" to them. However, from an illegal alien's perspective this may not be such a great deal. When one applies for the program the government now has their vitals including where they live. So for example, if a President gets in office who wants to repeal the order and round up illegals it can be more easily done. Given how many other supporters Obama has thrown under the bus in the past, why would any illegal alien feel safe signing up for the Obama program now?