Location:  Sands Expo Convention Center, Las Vegas, NV

Moderator:  Anderson Cooper (90)

Participants:  Gov Mitt Romney, Gov Rick Perry, CEO Herman Cain, Sen Rick Santorum, Rep Newt Gingrich, Rep Ron Paul, Rep Michele Bachmann (Gov Huntsman boycotted due to date changes.)

GOP Debate Participants and Moderator Anderson Cooper 90

The debate began with Anderson Cooper’s open-ended invitation for everyone to attack Hermann Cain, an offer they all took him up on.  Then it proceeded with quarreling and attacking, mostly involving Romney and Perry, and ended with Newt disapproving of the constant squabbling during the debate.

Romney and Perry bickering during CNN Las Vegas Debate

The following is a list of topics to choose from in this article. Underlined comments in the section represent best answers given.

Ranking the Debaters and Summary

Taxes and Cain’s 999 Plan

Obamacare Alternatives and How to Implement Them

How to Secure the Mexican Border

Opening a National Nuclear Depository at Yucca Mountain

Nevada Devastated by Real Estate Bubble

The “Occupy Wall Street” Idiots

Should a Candidate be Judged on Religion

Proposed Defense Budget Cut of $500 Billion

Foreign Aid: Should it Continue?

Who Can Beat Obama in the Presidential Election?

Conclusion

Ranking the Debaters

This is how the candidates performed and their best answers or quotes.  Note, these are not a ranking of the candidates themselves, just how they performed in the debate.

Details of the debate are listed below by category.  Best answers are underlined.

Taxes and Cain’s 999 Plan

Bachmann said you can’t give congress a new tax because they won’t get rid of the old one and they’ll raise the rate on it, whatever it may be. Her plan, which was not specified, calls for abolishing the income tax and flattening it for all Americans, however, everyone should pay, even if it’s just one dollar, just for the benefit of living here. Obama’s plan is destroying the economy.

Others such as Perry and Romney told Cain his plan “wouldn’t fly” because people would have to pay a national and state sales tax, in fact doubling purchase tax in some states.  They also claimed it was a “regressive tax” that would increase burden on middle class, raise rates, and not account for family support.

Cain had few allies, but defended his plan, said the math is available on his web site, and told the other candidates they were trying to mix apples and oranges, as in national and state sales taxes.  He emphasized removing the 10 million word tax plan with something simple that would create jobs.

The other candidates sounded kind of slow, by pretending they did not realize there’s a difference between the two, but they claimed to not understand it.  Newt defended the plan as bold, but said it would take several years to think it through.

The next invitation Cooper issued was for Perry and Romney to attack each other since Perry had previously called Romney a failure as governor.

Perry said we need an administration that doesn’t block our ability to harvest our own energy, so we can create jobs and have energy independence, to which Romney agreed.  Romney defended Romneycare from various attacks, as not being the basis for Obamacare.

Newt pointed out a Boston Herald report that the state is fining small businesses $3000 each, because their $750 per month health care plan is inadequate to the bureaucrats in Boston.  He said it was a faulty plan because it was designed in a top-down, big government fashion.  It also would not have worked in other states that didn’t have such an expensive federal Medicaid donation.

Obamacare Alternatives and How to Implement Them

All candidates agreed that Obamacare needs to be repealed, and offered solutions where patients and doctors could make decisions rather than the government.

Rep. Paul summarized the mutual feelings best: “Too much government is the problem… whenever government gets involved in something, the prices go up.”

At this point, Perry suddenly turned to Romney and brought up the same accusation from 4 years ago, that Romney had hired illegal aliens to work on his property (which McCain had, with the same certainty, accused of Romney, along with having a pink house, both of which Romney had denied.)

Romney, first laughed off the comment, then after being repeatedly interrupted by Perry in his defense of this, proceeded to lecture Perry on the rules of debate, told Perry he might be testy after some tough debates, and that if Perry wants to be president, he should learn to let other people speak. Perry received some boos during his interruptions.

How to Secure the Mexican Border

In the next question, Cooper stated that Cain had said at one point he would build an electrified fence on the Mexican border, but later said it was a joke, then again said he meant it. Cooper asked him to clarify.

Cain responded that we should secure the entire border with a fence, and use technology and boots on the ground to monitor it.  He also wants to improve the existing path to citizenship and enforce current immigration laws.

When asked if he would build a fence, Perry stated that we could build a fence, but it would take 15 years and $30 billion, but in the meantime we need boots on the ground.  A wiser expenditure would be to build fences in places where it makes sense, and use predator drones to monitor the entire border and give real time information to soldiers on the ground.

Bachmann’s take was a bit different, as she believes it already costs $118 billion per year for our government to take care of illegal immigrants, robbing each American household of about $1000 per year.  Therefore she would build a fence along the entire border, and remove taxpayer subsidies for illegal aliens.

Romney basically agreed with a fence and personnel to secure the border, and noted that 400 million are waiting to come here legally, and he would prefer they come in that way.  He also claimed that illegal immigration to Texas had increased 60% under Perry because of the “magnets” like in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants.

Cooper then of course raised the question of how they will woo the Latino vote after the racist act of closing off the border.  Newt said that people that came here legally should have the same America as everyone else.

Paul wants to remove the incentives for illegal aliens to be here, and to stop the group mentality of giving to one group (race) of people and removing benefits from another, and also that we should worry more about securing our own border than the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Cain said people of all color need a growing economy.  Perry said using our own energy resources would create jobs for them, but the current administration wants energy prices to go up instead. None of the candidates would repeal the 14^th amendment which protects “anchor babies.”

Opening a National Nuclear Depository at Yucca Mountain

Obviously a controversial topic in Nevada, there were some well thought out answers for this issue, which would require all nuclear waste in the nation to be hauled to Yucca mountain for storage.

Newt said we need to find a place to keep the waste geologically safe for however many thousands of years, and previous studies suggested Yucca was such a place.

Paul questioned the right of 49 other states to punish one state by dumping their garbage in it. The private companies should solve it, and energy shouldn’t be subsidized.

Romney said that Nevada should be able to say no if they don’t want the nuclear storage at Yucca, and the energy companies should give them a good deal to change their mind.  States could have competing bids if Nevada doesn’t want it.

Perry, in a rare moment, said “Mitt has hit this nail on the head,” and also agreed with Paul’s take.

Nevada Devastated by Real Estate Bubble

Santorum first claimed that everyone else on the stage supported the TARP bailout plan, except for himself, to which he was met immediately with shouts of “Wrong” by Perry and Cain.  The former senator insisted that Perry wrote a letter to congress to pass it on the day of the vote. He added that we need to let the markets work and not have managed failure.

Perry stated his letter was not to pass TARP, but to decrease regulations and taxes on business.

Romney disapproved of the idea that Washington DC can help the economy by intervening.

Cain said he supported the concept of TARP, but not how it was used by the administration.

Bachmann used this opportunity to appeal to women who are at the end of their rope and losing their homes where they raise children.

The “Occupy Wall Street” Idiots

Cooper quoted Cain as saying, “don’t blame banks or Wall Street; blame yourselves.”

Cain said that Wall St didn’t put in place failed economic policies or destroy the economy, and they’re taking out their frustration in the wrong place. They should be going to the White House.

Paul would blame Wall St, the White House, and the Federal Reserve. The bailouts from both parties went to big banks that were ripping people off. They should have given the money to people losing their houses, not the banks.  He added that the government is not capable of managing almost anything.

Romney pointed out that Obama has failed us on the economy, because he has no idea how the economy works or how to create jobs.  Median income has dropped 12% in the last three years.

Should a Candidate be Judged on Religion

Cooper brought up the controversy surrounding Pastor Robert Jeffress, who supports Rick Perry, saying publicly that Mormonism is a cult, and asked if the voters should pay attention to the religion.

Santorum said the voters should pay attention to the candidate’s values and what their faith teaches them about how to live their lives.  He said the road to salvation is not applicable to presidency, but the religion does have an impact on how the president will govern with respect to values.

Newt said none should judge others with their approach to faith, but because we are endowed by our creator with rights, who they pray to does matter.

Perry stated clearly that he did not believe the pastor’s remark about Mormonism, and Romney said he had heard worse disparaging comments about his faith.

Proposed Defense Budget Cut of $500 Billion

Bachmann said we’re losing international respect, as evidenced by an assassination attempt from Iran on US soil, and the president starting a conflict in a 4^th foreign country was stretching our troops too thin.  Her number one issue would be dealing with Iran and their nuclear ambitions.

Newt had the rant of the night by far on this one, and it’s worth quoting, “…look at this entire model of a super-committee, they have some magic number for us to get to, and if we don’t, then we all have to shoot ourselves in the head.  Then they’ll come back with the idea that we merely cut off our right leg, and then we’ll be grateful that they’re only semi-stupid…The idea that we have a bunch of historically illiterate politicians, who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of our defense budget, tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current power to lead in this country, in both parties….  We need figure out what threatens us, and find strategies to defend them… I’m a hawk, but I’m a cheap hawk… to say I’m gonna put the security of the US against some arbitrary budget number, is suicidally stupid.” This rant was met with intermittent but thunderous applause after each point.

Paul said he doesn’t want to cut defense, but would like to retract many of our troops stationed in Korea, Germany, Japan, and other places where we have no business. “The financial calamity is going to be worse than someone trying to invade us.”

Foreign Aid: Should it Continue?

Perry would like to have a serious discussion about foreign aid and funding the UN.

Romney pointed out that we’re borrowing money from China and handing it over to other countries. 

Paul said, “Foreign aid is where you take money from poor people in this country and give it to rich people in other countries, where they use it to build weapons of war.”

Bachmann said we shouldn’t cut foreign military aid to Israel, and we should be reimbursed by these nations which we have “liberated.”

Cain would like peace through strength, and start giving money to our friends instead of our enemies.

Who Can Beat Obama in the Presidential Election?

Cooper said a poll stated that 40% think Romney has the best chance, and Santorum only 1%. He asked if voters should go with the person they think can win.

Santorum said that less than half the people in a recent Pew poll could even name one of the GOP candidates.  He stated his track record as winning twice in the swing-state of Pennsylvania, against Democrat incumbents, as an unabashed conservative.  He neglected to mention that he didn’t win his last election, which in fact was more of an indictment on Bush and the entire GOP.

Romney stated his credentials as not spending his entire life in politics, but also as someone that created jobs in the private sector, and lowered unemployment to 4.7% in Mass as governor. He also stated that Perry supported Al Gore and 40% of Texas job growth involved illegal aliens.

Perry defended that he had created more jobs in 2 months in Texas than Mass has during Romney’s tenure, and said Romney was 47^th in job growth.

Bachmann claimed Obama will definitely be a one-term president.  She desires bold colors rather than pastels.

Newt said, “Maximizing bickering is probably not the best road to the White House,” referring to the debate format of back and forth quarreling. The former House Speaker said he would be strongest on sheer substance, and would like seven 3-hour debates, with no moderator, just a timekeeper.  He would like to reestablish American values.

Newt Gingrich disapproved of the squabbling like children

Conclusion

The closing remark by Newt, who seems to be the father of all the bickering children on stage, sums up the whole discussion.  Cain still refuses to attack other GOP candidates, but needs to do a better job of defending his tax and economic policies to have a chance.

The other candidates could learn from the wisdom of Newt and Ronald Reagan, but instead choose to attack each other, whether personally or on policy.  They should be disparaging Obama, and promoting their own records and policies, rather than assaulting their other candidate’s record.

Why they insist on viciously attacking each other makes no political sense at all, but they fall into the same trap every time.  It’s hard to believe but true.  All of the negativity they unleashed will be rehashed by their opponents next year, who will use the same tactics against them.

Perhaps the voters should elect someone who they think has the best chance of beating Obama, not only in a debate, but because of their electability, including appearance, available funds, and commercial ability.  Newt and Romney are the only candidates that seem capable of all of that.

History is filled with victory mosques erected by Islamists in their ongoing conquest to conquer the world. The point of a victory mosque is to memorialize the geographical area that the Islamists consider to have conquered. It symbolizes that they have taken control of that territory.

Europe and Asia are filled with these monuments, from the Dome of the Rock, the Blue Mosque, the Sultanahmet Camii, and perhaps most notably, the Cordoba Cathedral, which was a mosque built on a cathedral.

The sites were not chosen randomly. Many of them were formerly Christian or Jewish or Hindu temples, or in close proximity to such. The sacred locations were chosen to symbolize that control was transferred from the other states or religions to the state of Islam.

The mosque planned at 9/11 Ground Zero is the latest in this process that has been going on for centuries. What is interesting about this one, is that it seems premature, considering they have not conquered New York or Manhattan. Or have they?

That depends. If the mosque is allowed to be erected on Park Place in Manhattan, then victory is theirs. It would be the crowning achievement to the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks, and it would indicate that they have indeed conquered Manhattan and NYC for that matter.

If it is disallowed as it should be, then there is no victory mosque, and no victory. 9/11 will remain a single battle that Islamofascists have won in an ongoing war that they have been waging against the rest of the world for over a millennium.

The spineless jellyfish that we call politicians in our capitol will do nothing about it, because they don’t want to offend Islam. They are afraid of Islam and would rather appease Islamofascists than put them back in their place.

One of the reasons that large scale, organized terrorist attacks have gone stale in recent years in the west is that they are now considered unnecessary by Islamists.

Indeed they have realized that Islam can take over tolerant, peaceful countries such as the US or GB by infiltrating and taking advantage of our lenient policies. And they are doing so quite effectively.

Replicating at rates double or triple that of other groups or religions in western countries, Islamists are taking over in number. It may take a few decades, but that time is short considering the centuries of brainwashed hatred that has been passed down to the current generations of Islam.

Once they have some numbers, they begin by changing local laws, and getting Shariah law implemented in various municipalities. Then they work their way up to the state and national levels.

It is insidious, much like communism, which it is currently teaming up with toward defeat of a common enemy. The appeasing communists will simply be eaten last by the crocodile, as predicted by Winston Churchill.

This is not about freedom of religion. For the moment let’s put aside the fact that the main proponent of the mosque is a radical muslim cleric who espouses the typical Islamic hatred of America and its ‘infidels’.

The US Dept of Justice under Clinton went after Branch Davidians by violent means, calling them a cult because they were harboring guns, which are still legal in the US for now, even if the leftists believe they shouldn’t be.

A cult is allowed under law if it doesn’t harm anyone. That can’t be said of Islam. Their ‘religion’ preaches hatred and the murder of ‘infidels’, meaning those of us who don’t believe what they do.

Is that not truly the definition of a cult? A group that preaches and executes the killing of others arbitrarily for not being a part of their cult.

The solution is that America has to realize that Islam is a violent cult, and it must be treated as such. That is, if there is still an America, which is a matter of debate.

Until then, Islamists will continue to take over, one victory mosque at a time.

Where does one get the notions of right and wrong from anyway? Today, most are getting it from the media, politicians, sports and musical entertainers, and anyone else they idolize. This is probably the worst group of people to get morals or ethics from; they’re not only a very flawed cast of characters, but most of them are shameless about their constant immorality.

Our society is headed further down the slope of the dark side of immorality as it has for decades, and its relative morality travels with it just like an index fund.

If right and wrong are defined by politicians and the media, I would suggest we are all going to hell if we follow their notions. Politicians and the media both lie to us incessantly, then take no responsibility for it, and are not held accountable.

Is right and wrong defined by law? To some extent perhaps, but law is nothing more than a version of the legislated morality of the society it represents. Let’s look at some examples.

Speeding is wrong, right? I would argue that some people can safely operate their vehicles at a higher velocity than the posted limit. I see no wrong in that, as long as they are in control, and not unnecessarily risking the harm of others.

Is it wrong for an 18 year old to drink a beer? It wasn’t 30 years ago, why was it suddenly wrong 10 years later? Remember prohibition? A lot of people were illegal during that time.

Adultery has been long considered wrong by many. In fact, there are laws against it in most states. However, they have not been enforced in decades. Is it now right to have sex with another’s spouse? If you think so, think about whether you would like their spouse or family to find out.

(I understand in our new age of ‘enlightenment’ that there are ‘swing couples’ that are OK with sharing their spouse. I see their point, but not sure why they got married if they want to behave in that manner.)

There used to be laws about sodomy on the books, but now most have been erased or are not enforced. Does that make it right? If homosexual marriage is legal and right, then why not polygamy? Those are consenting adults also. Why can’t man or woman marry a consenting animal?

It is legal for our government to tax a large percentage of our income, before we even see it, in order to waste most of it on fraudulent bureaucracies, and other programs as they see fit. Many of these people in charge didn’t pay their taxes, but are forcing the rest of us to, which is another story. But is it right?

You are legally allowed to sell “snake oil” to the public, on the internet, or wherever, and if you make the worthless product sound good enough, many people will buy it, only to be disappointed afterward that it doesn’t work at all. Is that right or wrong?

Greedy banks, while extorting their customers at every turn, got too greedy and lured customers into paying for things with credit that they couldn’t afford, which ran their businesses into the ground. Then they accepted billions of dollars of taxpayer money from the government as a bailout. Is that right?

Some rap gangsters, doing what they preach in the form of various crimes, have rap sheets longer than any of their rap songs. But they’re not behind bars; they’re still out there freely performing their “art.” Right.

It’s also legal to sell your body for sex, sell your soul for rock and roll, have abortions, lie and deceive others, be unkind to your neighbor, curse at an old lady, buy and sell people, mismanage someone else’s money and take no responsibility for it, adopt an underage child to have sexual relations with him/her, and the list goes on.

Some people would find the aforementioned items of questionable morality. In fact, some would call them just plain wrong. So we’ve proven that the law does not provide an accurate authority on right and wrong, right?

What is right and wrong then? Do we just feel it? Some do, I would argue, but why, and how? Clearly serial killers, rapists, thieves and others, don’t see it the same way I do.

Morality and ethics used to be well-defined, once upon a time in America. Schools and parents alike taught kids the real difference between right and wrong, and why it was so. The Ten Commandments were used as the general standard.

Today, parents leave it up to the government, schools, and media to raise their children. Now, God and his Commandments can’t be mentioned in schools without bringing about a law suit. They are even scoffed at in the public square by the media.

In the not too distant past, half a century ago, Americans knew the difference between right and wrong. Crime was low, and people were punished for doing the wrong thing.

Then we had the drug induced, sexual revolution, anything goes, moral relativity, “awakening” decade of the 60’s. Manson, Bundy, and a whole host of other serial killers sprouted out of this era.

The children of this generation have terrorized others in schools with guns and bombs, for no apparent reason. But there is a reason: they have no moral compass. They simply subscribe to the moral authority of the day: Moral Relativism.

Pure Moral Relativism states that the morality of anything is simply relative to the people or society of the day, or even to personal preference.

Fortunately, for now, most Moral Relativists will at least admit there is a line you don’t cross: you can’t hurt other people. But if you listen to the rest of their debate, you may not agree with their definitions of hurting people.

Some interesting examples:

A drug addict hurts nobody except himself right? Ask his family members: his wife, kids, etc. whether they think this is true. Aside from that, has he helped or harmed society?

A sexual relationship between an adult and child hurts nobody, since they are both consensual participants, right? Again, ask the child’s family if they feel this is true. The same argument can be made for the adulterous relationship.

If a man presents an investment without substance, such as a Ponzi scheme, or snake oil, and people buy into it, then that is their choice. It’s just another stock market gamble. The victims would disagree.

What if a man makes money off others by a legitimate business such as selling food or cloth? Does he therefore hurt others by taking their money while he makes a lot of it? Some would argue so.

The fact that Moral Relativists will mostly agree to not hurting others is convenient, but who decides whether even hurting others is right or wrong? What if most people were to agree that hurting others for your own benefit is right, as in survival of the fittest? We have still to define the “hurt.”

Such is the slippery slope of Moral Relativism. If there is not an absolute right or wrong for most issues and crimes, then who defines it? Simply, it’s the individual. Therefore, if enough individuals decide that it is right for them to kill, maim, rape, steal, and destroy, then it is OK according to Moral Relativism.

Suppose you end up stranded on an island, and there are 10 men and 3 women. The nine other men have collectively agreed that it is OK for any man to rape any of the women. What do you do?

In order to prevent sliding further down the slope to complete immorality, we must admit that there is an objective right or wrong. We can either do that now, or continue pretending that we don’t have a standard for this so that we can be “tolerant” of others’ rights to be immoral or unethical.

Regardless of your version of how Moses’ Ten Commandments came into being, it is generally agreed by scholars that they appeared about 3500 years ago. Since then, they increasingly took hold in the western world as the moral standard by which most laws have been based.

If you haven’t ever read the Ten Commandments, look them over real quick and then answer this question: Is anyone harmed by the following of these rules?

Perhaps you are an atheist, and disagree with the first three. I still aver that nobody is harmed if you follow those. If you don’t know how to follow them then don’t. (An aside to atheists: those first three are meant for you.)

The bottom line is that, if people did adhere to these Commandments, regardless of your religion, the criminal harm of others would be almost nonexistent.

Seriously, if nobody steals, murders, adulters, lies about their neighbor to his detriment, or covets other’s property, how many more serious crimes are there? Assault and rape, I would assume, but every civilized country has laws on the books about this, because we know they are wrong. And I would propose keeping such laws.

Some financial scheming crimes aren’t covered, you might say, but we can categorize most of these under the 8th Commandment regarding theft.

The fact is that, unless we admit that there is a higher authority regarding morality, then the pure relativity of it that leads to chaos, will take over.

In the past, court witnesses were required to raise their right hand, put the other on the Bible, and state, “I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”

Obviously some people didn’t believe in the truth, or God, but this method was still very powerful, because the witness was consciously condemning himself in front of God if he did not tell the truth, whether he believed it or not.

Now, that commitment on top of the Bible and God no longer exists in courts, since it offended some people. I’m so sorry that they were offending criminal suspects, by the way. But without swearing to God, who are the witnesses swearing to?

Since the truth is relative, and without making an oath to God, the witness or suspect is only swearing to himself and his own relative morality. What good is that? Can we expect any modicum of truth out of him?

The entire justice system of our society has been compromised by Moral Relativism, from the courts, to how police can handle the suspects without offending them, to the definitions of the crimes that are committed.

Remember how OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder because the lead detective had made a racial joke in the past? Which is worse: the joke or the murder? The slippery slope of relativism simply leads to more crime and more chaos, with fewer repercussions.

This is what happens to a society that abandons its commitment to God and his Commandments. Immorality, unethical behavior, and crime are not only tolerated but promoted from the Moral Relativist segment of the society, under the banner of Tolerance of course.

I’m not trying to sell religion here. Each person is free to worship in his own way. What I’m proposing is that we respect the commitment to God and the Judeo-Christian ethics that our Founding Fathers set forth in this country. They obviously had good reason for doing so.

If you’re one of the small minority that doesn’t believe in God (less than 10%), then you’re in a small enough segment that you shouldn’t be able to enforce your version of morality on the 90% majority.

Even so, consider following the Ten Commandments anyway. Just think: if you’re wrong and there is a God, then at least you’ll be doing the right thing by him, and that may count for something one day.

In the meantime, we need to admit as a society and nation that there are universal truths, rights, and wrongs. We need to return to following God’s law as it was stated thousands of years ago, which doesn’t hurt anyone, but in fact protects people from getting hurt.

What have we got to lose by having a more moral and ethical society?