Hit them overseas, before they attack us

Gene Simmons was interviewed by Fox's Megan Kelly on Thursday. The interview centered on Simmons' new business projects. But he answered some public policy questions, as well.

From Fox News:

I voted for Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. We can disagree for instance on certain social issues, and completely disagree with our pathetic foreign policy. It's wimpy. We don't have the backbone to step up and recognize danger a thousand miles before it hits us. Unfortunately, we react better when its Pearl Harbor. We have to get a punch in the nose. I don't believe that.

Simmons on Domestic Policy: No to ObamaCare, Yes to Personal Liberty

Simmons went on to comment on Obama's health care proposal:

I think the worst thing we can do right now is health care... When the government gets involved it's disaster.

Gene Simmons has been called "Ayn Rand in the extreme." He has described himself as an Ayn Randian of sorts, in numerous interviews over the years, and has cited her as an inspiration for his works.

In response to reader mail, Simmons once wrote on his website:

Ayn Rand: One of my heros

Simmons authored a book in 2003, "SEX, MONEY, KISS"; an ode to capitalism and rugged individualism. Wrote Simmons:

"Stand there proudly, unapologetically, unabashedly, and say, I love cash. It will get me everything I want in life."

Books and other products GeneSimmons.com

Domestic Policy views largely a Mystery

The London Telegraph is reporting that General David Petraeus has a speaking engagement set for March 24, in of all places, the First in the Nation Primary State of New Hampshire.

From the Telegraph, March 19:

The shrewd and articulate military commander, credited with turning around the Iraq war, will deliver a speech at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire next week, a traditional staging post in the state where the first presidential primaries are held every four years. Each of the last eight presidents has spoken at the college on their way to victory.

Aged 57, Gen Petraeus was catapulted to fame when then President George W Bush sent him to Baghdad in early 2007 to carry out the "surge" strategy that helped rescue Iraq from all-out civil war.

He drew up the counter-insurgency strategy that helped transform that conflict and is now being deployed with some encouraging early signs in Afghanistan.

A Northeastern Scott Brown Republican?

The General has given very few hints as to his political leanings over the years; saying only that we ought to "look at" revising the gays in the Military issue, and most recently taking a balanced approach on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict in the Middle East.

The Telegraph goes on to suggest that Petraeus may lean more towards the Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe wing of the GOP.

He has also described himself as a "Rockefeller Republican" – a pro-business, socially liberal New Englander...

But there are other indications that he might be more closely identified as a Scott Brown Republican. Also a northeasterner, Brown is fiercely Pro-Military and a 30-year officer in the US Army.

HotAir.com regular contributor Dafydd ab Hugh theorizes:

Petraeus has an intensely American view of life, duty, and the world... He comes from a conservative section of New York State, Orange County.

Paul and his supporters, apologists for Dictators and Tyrants

Their views have transformed into a "strident anti-Americanism"

Supporting Saddam Hussein "very anti-libertarian"

Josaih Schmidt has a piece over at Rightosphere, "A Free Market in Foreign Policy." Schmidt rejects both NeoConnism, and Ron Paul strict non-interventionism. He most recently left the Paul camp. He found Paul supporters to be too quick to make excuses for Saddam Hussein and Iran's Ahmadinejad. Schmidt rather, now advocates a gradual move towards a privatized Military.

Excerpt:

Personally, I have adhered to several different schools of foreign policy thought over the span of my adult life.

After 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, I became a hardcore neoconservative: the American government ought to reprise an aggressive Wilsonian strategy of spreading democracy, changing regimes, and treating the opinions of foreign governments and international bodies as secondary concerns. As the wars dragged on, and I began to recognize the financial unsustainability and myriad unintended consequences of the government's actions abroad, I started to drift toward a Ron Paulian non-interventionism.

However, I have lately been finding myself feeling a bit out of place in all of the major foreign policy camps. In recent months, I have found some differences between Ron Paul's approach and mine. For one, many non-interventionists are so scornful and cynical of the US government's foreign policy, that it has almost transformed into a type of anti-Americanism. A lot of Paulian non-interventionists, in their well-meaning quest to avoid war, have taken to defending and apologizing for dictators and tyrants. There is a very good case to be made that the Iranian government may be developing nuclear weapons, but instead of talking about how a Paulian foreign policy could handle such a situation, most Paulians simply fervently deny that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons at all, and label any assertions to the contrary as "war-mongering". When it is reported that Ahmadinejad threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map', non-interventionists are usually among the first to claim that the Persian ruler's words were mistranslated or taken out of context. And non-interventionists' adoption of the legitimate, CIA-documented phenomenon of "blowback" often leads them to oppose foreign intervention or criticism of foreign governments by even private citizens or groups. Some Paulians even make the very anti-libertarian claim that the Saddam Hussein regime was the best government Iraqis could hope for, and that Saddam's brutality actually provided security and stability!

Schmidt goes on to suggest that privatization of the Military industrial complex would better allocate resources in War, than centrally-planned Government strategies. He further comments:

conservatives and libertarians understand better than anyone that government lacks the knowhow to plan other peoples' lives, and that central planners (in the absence of a market pricing system) lack the means to rationally allocate resources to their most value-productive uses...

return war and foreign policy to the free market, we must advocate the government spend less taxpayer money on these services, and reduce government involvement and regulations in this area, etc. Allow private firms and individuals to decide which dictators to topple (and private firms and individuals do have an interest in getting rid of these types of thieves and thugs), allow private firms and individuals to decide which nuclear facilities to bomb, allow private firms and individuals to decide how to negotiate peace between fighting factions, etc. etc.

Read the full article at Rightosphere (formerly Race42012.com)