Bill Lyons- This is Bill Lyons, Carolina Sons of Liberty with an interview with Frank Roche, candidate for U.S. Congress, District 4 North Carolina. Frank I'd like to thank you for taking the time for this interview today.
Frank Roche- Thank you Bill, it's a great privilege.
Bill Lyons- Ok, Frank. Let's start out with the economy.
Bill Lyons- On August 17th in a CNBC interview, Richard Dugas Jr the CEO and President of Pulte Homes stated that the number one area of home growth and construction is Washington D.C. He goes on to state that this is primarily due to expansion of government jobs. What are your thoughts that government spending instead of the private sector is responsible for the number one area of home growth?
Frank Roche- It concerns me a lot and I'm sure it's true. Let's face it, the huge expansion of government expenditures even over the past, just 5 years, remember we have to include George Bush in this, has been like nothing in our history. We're now at a 2.3 trillion dollar budget on an annual basis, and it wasn't that long ago when we were looking at 500 million a year. So, yes, it makes a lot of sense to me that there's population growth generated around Washington DC because of all the people that come in to support the government; it's all feeding from the same thing, so I agree, and it's a concern.
Bill Lyons- H.R 1207: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 is currently being reviewed in committee by the House Committee on Financial Services. If passed this will lead to an audit of the Federal Reserve. In a Sept 6, 2009 article of the UK Telegraph a Chinese Official stated that China "will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies." Given the loose monetary policy created by the Fed, what role if any should the Federal Reserve play in our economic recovery?
Frank Roche- Well, the feds are already playing a big role in the recovery. In fact, one could say that to the extent of the economy has bottomed and come off the bottom a little bit, you have to credit that with the actions of the fed and not at all with the actions of the fiscal stimulus that came out of Washington DC both in terms of the stimulus' themselves and the TARP money. So you have to give fed the credit, the loose monetary policy and low interest rates are the key factors of the bottoming out of the current recessionary period we've just come through.
Bill Lyons- It's a foregone conclusion that in our lifetime Social Security and Medicare will go bankrupt. What plans would you like to implement to mitigate the damage this bankruptcy will cause to our economy?
Frank Roche- I agree with that premise, I would change it a little bit and say that the country will go bankrupt before the programs themselves, but that's just a semantic thing we can talk about there. Two immediate things come to mind: Reducing services and means testing. Politicians must have the courage to actually reform those programs so that they have long run stability. The first steps we have to take is , A) For those people that can afford to pay their own healthcare in their senior years, they need to do more of that, and that's where the means testing comes in. B) We have to reduce, unfortunately, the number of services available on the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security programs. We've all seen the commercial with the chair that spins around on TV for those who can't walk, and it is prominently displayed Medicare will pay the whole cost of this (chair). Now, you know, if someone can't walk, it sure is a problem, no question, but should all of us be giving anyone that has a problem walking a free ride along chair on our bill? It's one little, silly example but it's a meaningful example of how far service has gone awry in terms of what's provided by medicare. Constraint in services and means testing are the first two things that have to be done.
Bill Lyons- It is estimated that the US debt will exceed $11 trillion and that unfunded liabilities such as Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security will exceed another $59 trillion. Common sense dictates that in order to decrease one's debt, one must decrease their spending. In what areas can and should the government curb spending?
Frank Roche- Every single area except national defense is where we can curb spending. I would, again, emphasize your point in your question and that is to say the real debt is the liabilities we have out until 2050. It's one thing to call our current deficits, 11 trillion, meaningful and scary, but the real number we should look at is the 50-60 trillion dollars that we really are on the hook for, and that's the number to come out with strong, because that's the real numbers so until we un-bundle those mandatory liabilities.........that's the number that is real and we have to look to.
Bill Lyons- So you're saying that unfunded liabilities are 50-60 trillion dollars?
Frank Roche- Out to 2050.
Bill Lyons- That's a big number. I don't think people are quite aware of how much money that actually is.
Frank Roche- I don't know what it is either, I just know the number I say, I say it with a "T". All of a sudden, Washington has gotten comfortable with the "T". Remember it took awhile to get comfortable with "Billions" and in a matter of a year and a half, trillions are thrown around like nothing. Write it down on a piece of paper, put it in your computer, it's a long number, and you do the math, That's at least five years of economic output for this nation.
Bill Lyons- The US Tax Code is over 16,000 pages long, Atlas Shrugged is just over 1,000; the Bible is a little over 1,200 and War and Peace is 1,400. Members of the President's own administration admittedly have trouble understanding and following it. The average citizen cannot be expected to easily navigate the tax laws when the Treasury Secretary can't pay his tax bill due to the complexity of the tax code. Does the tax code need to be simplified and if so, how?
Frank Roche- Yes, it does. With courage, as a simple word, because, the tax code is complicated as a result of special interests. It's a result of politicians trying to fine tune bad policy on the run, for, you know, several decades now. So, it's way overcomplicated as of that. In fact, even today in our current debating we talk about how to "stimulate the economy" from a fiscal side. One of the things I try to avoid as a solution are tax credits, and I only do that for one reason. I don't want to further complicate the tax code. There's enough tax codes. What we need to do of course is move away from the current system. We need to get into something very simpla in terms of taxes. Everyone pays, very few deductions, no offshore tax savings. Ideally we would go after either the consumption tax or the fair tax. I have some concerns with it as it is presently presented in terms of this prebate notion where we are going to give people money on the low end of the income scale in order for them to stand up to the new tax increases. I'm not happy about that particular piece, so the consumption tax is probably our best bet. Having said that, before we get there, another move we can make quickly is eliminate corporate and small business tax. Let me rephrase that, bring as close to zero as we can corporate and small business taxes on this premise: They are tax collectors, they are not tax payers.
Bill Lyons- So, would a simplified tax code put more or less money in the pockets of the government?
Frank Roche- Well, it probably puts less. In fact, any tax reform that I would have in mind is going to be based on a government expenditure that is well below 2.3 trillion dollars on a yearly basis. I'm not going to be tied to this idea of you know, (the federal budget was) 3% of GDP in 1950 so it should be 3% in 2020. I hate that math. The government should be the size it should be because that's the size it should be; not based on the size of the economy. If you have a successful government system, doesn't that mean that government by design should get smaller and smaller if they're doing their job right? So, that's kind of where I come down on that issue.
Bill Lyons- The official Labor Department August unemployment rate is at 9.7%. However, the government's broader measure known as U-6 hit 16.8% in August. U-6 factors in those who stopped looking for work or who can't find full-time jobs. Should the government report U-6 as their official number and what can be done to return jobs to the private sector?
Frank Roche- Yes is the answer. That is the proper unemployment rate. Now, of course you can get into politics very quickly there, and that's the courage of politicians to stand up to the truth in the midst of an election cycle. That's really what it comes down to, but, it's decades old, and it's not just America that does that. Most developed nations measure their unemployment rate the way that we do, as our headlines say, people who are actively looking for work. As you know, we have two surveys. We have the household survey and we have the workplace survey. The two of them are really in tandem and often, one could easily come down to the fact that the one they end up using is the employer survey which is not as broad based as the household survey. It gives us a much more telling picture. It gives you worse signals at the bottom of a recession and at the top of a growth cycle, so, having said that, getting the government out of the way is what could be done to return jobs to the private sector. You mentioned the book "Atlas Shrugged" in one of your earlier questions. There's a great line at the end of the book. It's a simple line, It says, "Get out of the way", and that is the best thing government can do to bring jobs back to the private sector. The federal government does not create jobs, except for the executive branch, which we've discovered, and they're nicely paying jobs, but no, that is not the role of government and I dislike the fact that politicians have taken it upon themselves to have their main goal as creating jobs. What they do (the government) and George Bush used to say this well, is they create the environment for job growth. So, no, get out of the way, do it as soon as possible, and let individuals worry about creating jobs.
Bill Lyons- Ok, so we'll switch over to domestic policy. Regarding illegal immigration, 74% of voters believe that the federal government is not doing enough to stem the flow of illegal's into the country and 68% favor strict government sanctions for businesses that employ illegal immigrants. The estimated educational cost's for children of illegal immigrants is about $34.5 billion per year. How can we secure our borders and how should we deal with those illegal immigrants currently residing in the country?
Frank Roche- Securing out borders is not a hard decision to make, it's just a matter of doing it. A wall would be a great idea. Of course, we've started one and stopped one, and started one and stopped one. It's a terrible thought, I mean, you'd hate to think from the pacific to the gulf of Mexico a wall dividing Mexico and the United States. Until we have the courage as a nation to step up, in ways that we already have on the books, the wall has got to be the way to go. I have a couple of unorthodox ideas as well. We can use technology to help us observe the border, but technology does not deter anyone, it just lets us know who's coming and who's going. So, we've had in our country for a long time a discussion about military bases within our borders, where they are, and if they're still useful when the cold war is over. We, of course, have forces stationed overseas, and to bring them back, where do we put them? I would like to see, to the extent possible, moving (some) military bases to the southern border, such that, we always have a military presence. Now this is not to say, put the military down there to defend the border. Of course, that's what the military should be doing anyway. What I'm saying is put the presence down there, and you know how big these military bases are, thousands and thousands of acres. They use their facilities to train. We could just have a presence there, just constantly have our troops being around, being there. Of course, the other thing about illegal immigration is the drug trade coming up from Mexico. We need to get much more aggressive. We have, as best as I can tell, reports of Mexican nationals whoever they are, coming across our border and firing on our own border guards and our own citizens, and that kind of stuff can not be tolerated. That's another area that the military can help. From a social perspective, there's a lot we can do from the bully pulpit.which is to say, "Don't come here". "What you think is going to be here is not going to be here because all that was going on before is going to change". There's a lot of ways to do it, if you just have the courage to do it.
Bill Lyons- Is there a political will to do that now?
Frank Roche- With Frank Roche as your congressman, yes. With the majority in the congress, no. Because we have compromised Americans in congress, both Republicans and Democrats. They keep the focus on re-election rather than what's best for America.
Bill Lyons- With the death of Senator Edward Kennedy we saw the end of a 46 year career as a US Senator. Is it time to enact term limits for all elected officials? Why?
Frank Roche- I hate this question. It makes me sad, because it implies that our fellow citizens are not doing their job. I understand completely where the question comes from, and Kennedy is a fantastic example of it: How the constituents of that state repeatedly sent this man back to the senate, after all of his personal difficulties, all of his lack of actual productive...things with the senate. After he put up something like 2500 bills, that he wrote, and 380 something passed? There's baseball players that get fired with better averages than that...and so at this time, given the lack of courage from our fellow citizens in many districts such as these throughout the country, I suppose it is appropriate to discuss term limits, because, let's face it: We have 30 or 40 Senators who have been in office over 30 years; and we have 35-40 U.S. House members that have been in office for over 30 years, and look what is happening. So, reluctantly I say yes. If a bill came across my desk that had some bounds to it which is to say, I don't like the idea that the president only gets 8 years, but a senator who gets two terms get 12, so, while it's way out of the normal course of discussion, I would rather see 3 terms for the President, 2 terms for a senator, and 6 terms for a house member (all being limited to 12 years in office).
Bill Lyons- As a governing document, how important is the Constitution? Is it a living document? (Which means it has dynamic meaning and its interpretation should be evolving.)
Frank Roche- Wait, Bill, I thought you were a guy from the (political) right side of the aisle!
Bill Lyons- (Laughs!)
Frank Roche- No. The Constitution is not a "living document". It is a document that is "laid down in stone" so to speak, that is a guidebook that our representatives and senators should work. Of course, it has been bastardized badly over the past 50-60 years......by Republicans as well as Democrats, and that's kind of, one of the reasons why I'm running right now. It's because we're so far outside of the constitutional bounds right now and no one seems to be caring about it. We've got a handful (elected officials) that live by Ron Paul who are concerned about it. We get the lip service from people about it but no one really does anything about it. Like this healthcare bill that we're currently considering: Has anyone considered that this is not the role of the federal government?
Bill Lyons- Carolina Sons of Liberty has....
Frank Roche- Yeah, I'm sure you have. It's in your name of course, but this should be a state job. That's just one example. The state department, the commerce department, oh we can go down the line, you know, these are all things that are unconstitutional, and certainly, should not be allowed to have federal activity.. which brings us back to the constitution. So, the Constitution is not a living document, it's not perfect, clearly, but it's the best constitution I've ever seen on the planet, and it's served us very well for the last 200 years or so.
Bill Lyons- I couldn't agree more.
Frank Roche- What's important to remember is that it's a (Representative) Republic, not a Democracy. It's a system that for so long has worked. When people looked back at it in the 60's and 70's, and those same people are now older and still looking back at it, and they see an imperfect document. They forget that it's imperfect humans (that wrote it). We're still an amazing country, and always have been, but we're still human beings, same as they are in China, as they are in Brazil, as they are in Canada, wherever they are, human beings make the mistakes, so.....I don't like judging the actions of those who lived 200 years before us, and therefore impuning the work done on the Constitution; and that's really what you get from the (political) left.
Bill Lyons- I think they did the best they could given......the time in which they lived.
Frank Roche- Well, you know, look, we live in these kinds of moments ourselves. They were in kind of a crisis mode. The Articles of Confederation were not working, and the tension with England, and the powers that be there, and you know, it's kind of like what we did after 9/11 with homeland security, or what they're doing now with healthcare. It was well thought out, and it was based on religious issues, and it was based on common sense and not on emotional reaction. So the same political process is going on (now) but (then it was done) with much more temper and morally correct individuals.
Bill Lyons- George Washington said "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth." In District of Columbia v Heller the Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. This decision is currently under attack by several municipalities. What course should our government take regarding individuals rights to own and carry firearms?
Frank Roche- They should take no course. It's the Constitution. It says it right there. Let's remind ourselves why it's in the Constitution. It's not so we can go kill squirrels. It's so we can protect ourselves from the government, from the military that works for the government. That's what it's there for. That's what the colonists had on their side, right? Without their ability to bring arms together, how were they ever going to take on England to begin with? Now, it seems really fanciful in modern day with the amazing military power at the government's controls. For me, that's the key. It's not about hunting, it's not about shooting, it's about the right to protect yourself from the government.
So, keeping that premise, this (right) just cannot be interrupted. I'd like to say, secondly, guns don't kill anybody, someone must pull the trigger. To clarify that, I know that accidents happen, but we're talking about homicides, murders, and use of the weapon, and that's by a human being. That's about behavior, that's about culture, that's about society, and it's not about the fact that the gun was built, or that the bullet was made.
The left is, of course, convinced that getting the guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans that no one will have them, but who will then have them?
Bill Lyons- Just the criminals.
Bill Lyons- We often hear the term "separation of church and state" yet there is no such statement in the Constitution. A Florida high school's principal and athletic director are scheduled to go on trial next week for praying with other adults at a school-related luncheon. John Adams said "The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity" and on May 12, 1779 George Washington said "What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." As a free people whose nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles what rights do we have to pray freely in public and in public institutions? Does anything need to be done to change the current anti-religion environment?
Frank Roche- Well, yes, the answer is yes, but it isn't an anti religious environment, it's an anti Christian environment. You don't see Jewish people, Muslims, atheists or agnostics being bothered, do you? it's about weakening one of the core elements of the American state, that is the supporting faith, the Judeo-Christian faith which is the key element of our whole country, and of course our founding documents are littered with it. The Constitution doesn't say there should be no separation of church and state, it does say that we're not going to advocate a religion. Take whatever religion you want. Those that founded this country were primarily Christians. It doesn't say that there should be a separation, but only that we wouldn't force one on others.
Bill Lyons- There is a chance that our current legislature may try to enact Card Check and the Fairness Doctrine. What benefits if any would this provide to the American people?
Frank Roche- None.....
Bill Lyons- Let's move on to foreign policy.
Bill Lyons- Harold Koh, the legal advisor to the Department of State, is a supporter of trans-nationalism (the incorporation if international laws into U.S legislation). In a 2005 legal journal article he wrote "Transnational law matters because it increasingly influences laws and policies that govern us." What importance should U.S. sovereignty play in foreign policy?
Frank Roche- Everything. Whenever we are conducting foreign policy it should always be focused on maintaining American soverignty to the highest degree possible. The move towards global government is a huge mistake and it is something that the "elites" (in America and abroad) are well involved in. America is one of the first countries that they are trying to spill into it. This started in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's where the world was really concerned about this amazing country we had, the amazing strength to overwhelm everybody, and it started back then. "How do we harness this? How do the Lilliputians get down Gulliver?" This is one of the moves to diversify finance, diversify trade, minimize nationalism, get the citizens, because American citizens have always been the most proud. Patriotism was a key element, and so, they had to diminish that. Thet diminish that by multinational corporations, by trade, by immigration, so, soverignty, American soverignty, is in jeopardy. As your congressman, I'll work to reverse that completely, I'll work to do away with the UN, , the IMF, the world bank, and any time we get involved in any kind of international relations like that. We've got to remove ourselves from that. The Constitution is our guidebook, I believe in the nation state. Of course, the people on the left hate the nation state because of what happened in World War II and Adolf Hitler. But I refuse to allow one nutcase (Hitler) to diminish this amazing country that we've built. In the course of human history, there have been few organizational structures that I can see that are better then the nation state. I like the competition of the nation state, and of course the left hates it, you know, because someone is strong, someone is weak, someone gets what they want someone doesn't get it. That's human nature, and that's what happens.
Bill Lyons- Human nature, men, women; they compete with each other, to see who can do the best, who can go the furthest, and it is natural. Even psychology will tell you that people will look to size themselves up with one another. They look to see who's higher on the chain and who's lower.
Frank Roche-Yes, no matter what we do, in our life, it's some kind of competition, and it helps us get a little better. It's not fun to lose in a competition, but it's natural, it happens, but it usually brings out good results.
Bill Lyons-
US/Israel relations have recently become strained as President Obama demanded a halt to settlement construction in the West Bank. How important is our relationship with Israel?
Frank Roche- It's very important, if for no other reason that we have millions of Americans of Jewish faith. Israel's important obviously because they're a democracy, and we helped form the nation, and we have a long connection to that nation since it's beginning. Our interest in the middle east is oil.....let's face it. Now that's not to say that if the oil dries up tomorrow in the middle east we wouldn't work to protect Israel. Of course we will because we have that long history, they're a friend of America. Barak is on the wrong side of this, no question. Now, do we need to be a little bit more even handed when dealing with the middle east, generally? I think it would be a good idea. To become a little less, obvioiusly, pro Israel, to stay open minded to other concerns. The bottom line is, ultimately all the concerns come down to, is they (arab nations in the middle east) don't want Israel to exist, and we need their (arab) oil. That's the balance that's constantly trying to be struck.
Bill Lyons- Is it a "bad thing" to have as a priority that we need oil?
Frank Roche- No! Foreign policy is about making America stronger and better. I guess we could complain about using oil as our main source of energy, I guess that could be changed....not really, but you get my point. But....no. Oil is what we use. The pen in your hand comes from oil, the tar on the road in my neighborhood comes from oil. I'm a fan of man, I don't apologize for that. We're amazing creatures and we have done amazing things on this planet. Oil is part of what we need to do those things.
Bill Lyons- As we approach the 8th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, are we doing everything possible to protect Americans from future attacks?
Frank Roche- No, not at all. In fact, on the immigration front alone, we've failed miserably since 9/11. Don't forget: it was bad immigration policy that allowed many of those individuals to get into our country, and fly in our aircraft. Since that time, immigration enforcement has not improved at all. Border security has not improved at all. What's the term? OTM's? Other than Mexicans? It's grown dramatically since 9/11. That is people coming across the southern border that are not Mexicans. We're definitely not safer from a border security perspective. Our police are well outfitted, and we have new ambulances, and fire trucks all over the place, let's just hope that the building that they're next to doesn't fall down on them, and blow away all that first responder money we spent in the months after. So, what I'm trying to point out is that it was all facade. I mean, great; the cop has a new belt on, but that doesn't matter when people are coming in here to hurt us, and we're doing things that cause them to do this, then that's the problem.
I didn't get a chance to mention it earlier, but with respect to immigration there's three social counterparts that really complicate immigration. 1) Multiculturalism, 2) political correctness, and 3) identity politics. Now within that framework is this "anti profiling" position we've taken with respect to airport security, and border security. We don't want to offend the innocent person. Here's something for the Muslim community to consider: if they're so up in arms about the fact that their fellow Muslims are doing this to us, and how much they abhor it, well then they're going to have to suffer as a result, a little more inconvenience at the airport. That would be an incentive to them to reach out to their fellow Muslims and say, "Hey! enough of this already!" But instead what do we do? We make their life easier.
Bill Lyons- I think it falls to people who think a little more logically and a little less emotionally. I mean, I want to think emotionally. What the say sounds good, but intellectually, it just doesn't work well, or doesn't work at all.
Frank Roche- The difference between right and left.
Bill Lyons- I recently heard the statement that, "People on the left make their decisions based on emotion and try to justify it with logic."
Frank Roche- That sounds right. You know, look, I don't know how I got to this point, you may not know how you got there either, but, life is what taught me, living is what taught me personal responsibility, delayed gratification. Of course, my parents helped me out, but when you live life, when you observe how life is going on around you, and you get a leftist position or suggestion, and you try and connect it with how you actually live your life, it doesn't add up.
The key distinction that has to be made with this is, we're talking about how the spending of other people's money is being done. It's enough to have a conversation if a person is a Democrat and another is a Republican, or conservative and a liberal, and we agree, for instance that, gee, poor people in America, I feel so bad, I wish we could do something. It's altogether different to say, "Let's use the tax revenue that was collected from everybody, and use the biggest portion to help out this guy down here, who kicked around during school, disrespected his parents, didn't treat women well, didn't work hard when he was at work, and now he's suffering because he can't pay his healthcare insurance, and wants someone else to pay it for him. It comes down to the use of scarce resources. that's the key element that you have to keep in mind. Altruism. It's a wonderful concept, but it costs money. someone's got to come up with the money.
Bill Lyons- The U.S. is opening up a dialogue with Iran. This is a shift from the previous administrations policy. What can be gained from this shift in policy?
Frank Roche- Something. I don't have a problem with this. Economic sanctions have been used by the United States because they were unwilling to take the tough choices otherwise since the end of World War II. If you can find me a case where sanctions actually worked, I''ll give you a hundred dollars. Now, it may cost me a hundred bucks, but it isn't going to cost me three hundred. Sanctions have been in place and where are we at?
Bill Lyons- Nowhere.
Frank Roche- So, if I had a neighbor whom I had a problem with, I would eventually try to talk with them. If I had a friend, or a family member, and I had a fight with them, I know that it sounds a little silly, but until you deal with the problem, the problem cannot be dealt with. So, I don't like Obama's rhetoric, in terms of why he thinks it's appropriate to go talk to them, My concern with them (the Iranians) is from a governmental level, not necessarily from how they manage their own country. No conversation gets you nothing. Otherwise, I challenge you to tell me your alternative. Look at is this way, think of all the energy we're spending by not talking to Iran.
Bill Lyons- A new opinion poll shows that 53% of Americans want U.S. forces out of Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan said "The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy." What can we do to ensure victory in Afghanistan and keep Americans safe from terrorists?
Frank Roche- Well, a couple of things. First, get NATO out; put in 200,000 more troops; and get the politicians out of the way. The probability of that happening is very remote. Remember the (Colin) Powell doctrine from the first gulf war? It worked beautifully, it was brilliant. Did we use it in Iraq? No. And what did we get? Eight years of more difficulty. What have we been doing in Afghanistan? We started out using most of their forces and complimenting them with ours, and it went great. But that was the easy part. It's a massive country, it's tribal, there's no democracy, there's no real cities. It's a Bedouin kind of tribe. (Many) are hooked on drugs. I never bought into the nation building concept that came out of the 1980's and 1990's. That's America's "great guilt" stuff for me. When you have a problem militarily, you deal with the problem. To the extent that we are going to stay there, let's find out what the mission is, use over powering strength, and then just do it. I'm talking brutal warfare. When I'm in office, and I'm going to put American forces in harm's way, it's going to be done quick, and effective, and brutal. So, that's my first comment, but now I ask a question back, and I ask it rhetorically: What's the point? Did we not do what we needed to do? Did we not get the guys who attacked us on 9/11? The Taliban; I mean, where are they going to go? Over the border to Pakistan? Are we going to go attack Pakistan? So, for me, the whole Afghan war and mission has been mismanaged since the second year (2002).
We can't pull out, of course. A surge is not going to work. I mean, we need probably 200,000 to 300,000 troops on the ground. It's not the political will to do so. the military has been so...dwindled since the Clinton administration So they say we can fight two front wars, but, you know, look at military retentions, look at rates, look at this surge, 30,000 people in Iraq was a "big deal". I'm really saddened by what's happened in Iraq. We had no objectives, the politicians won't let loose the military. We have the military to do this job. Let them off the hook to do their job, or get (them) out. George Will wrote an article last week, questioning the point to it all. What's the chance of building a nation out of chaos? Let them be chaos, and poor, and stuck in their old ways. Make our point, which we did of course, very quickly after 9/11, and get out. I don't want my grandchildren to be worried about the troops that are stationed in Afghanistan. I mean, let's show some gumption. Get it done and get out.
Bill Lyons- Last question, and this is a very broad, simple question. What is good about America?
Frank Roche- Oh, goodness. Everything's good about America. Our system is great, even though it's under attack. The Constitution, free enterprise, the rule of law. The landscape is amazing. From the Atlantic to the Pacific, what an amazing continent to be a part of. Our way of life. Even thought we're here talking about it being in jeopardy, it's still an amazing way of life. Look at this beautiful home I have, these beautiful cars we drive, and the roads we drive on. The music and movies. Just the whole lifestyle of being an American is amazing. You know, it's funny, without getting specific, those "big picture" things. Just being lucky enough to be born here. The healthcare we have access to, that we have to pay for. Self reliance, personal responsibility. These are all things that have been taught for a long time that I still have in the midst of what seems to be breaking down around me. Those are great things about America. One last thing. Every day, Americans go to work. Think about that, because the day that stops, is the day we go back to "Atlas shrugged" and the lights go out. Think about that.
Bill Lyons- Frank, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to interview you today.
Frank Roche- Well Bill thanks very much. I've been looking foreword to this interview for a long time.
end of page
Frank Roche interview 2009
Carolina Sons of Liberty