Posts Tagged ‘2012’

Happy New Year

Saturday, December 31st, 2011

Happy New Year!

May your year be prosperous and filled with promise!  2o11 has been a tumultuous year indeed, and there have been many good things to go along with the bad.  Let us hope the balance shifts to the positive for 2012!

I want to thank all of you for making the first six months of this blog a success, and I want you to know also that I value your readership and your participation very much!

I also want to thank all the great writers at Conservatives4Palin, US4Palin, my TAM friends, and all those who have offered so much encouragement and support!

Enjoy the fireworks, the parties, and be safe out there!  Enjoy the company of your friends and families and have a wonderful beginning to 2012, and let this be the year we take our country back!

Happy New Year!

2012: Anti-Climax or Armageddon?

Tuesday, December 27th, 2011

2012 Looms

Let’s dispense with Mayan calendars from the outset. Neither do I have any interest in misinterpreted antiquities made into modern hoaxes, nor do my readers have any interest in debunking them.  If you came expecting that, please move back over to the MUFON website and carry on in peace, or “Live Long and Prosper,” or wait to be beamed up, or whatever it is you do.  The coming year promises a great number of possibilities, but an accumulating body of evidence suggests that many of them are decidedly bad, at least to the greatest numbers of the American people.  We face many challenges in the coming year, but they need not be apocalyptic. Rather than engage in a load of useless, fear-mongering hyperbole that will be all too common over the next week or so, let’s take a look at the real threats that we face, and conduct an honest assessment of our ability to mitigate them, both from the standpoint of individuals, and also as a nation.

Of course, the possibilities are endless, even discounting Mayan Calendars and the lot, but I think we can group these easily into three major categories, since there’s no real way to predict natural disasters despite the insistence of some who should have by now departed for MUFON. Let us consider our worst threats what they almost always really are: “Man-caused disasters” of one form or another, and that they fall into three major categories we I will list as economic, military and political.  Carl Von Clausewitz would have argued that the latter pair are merely different forms of the same thing, but in this context, I’d like to confine them to their separate definitions.

Let us begin with the category most likely to bear rotten fruit:  The economy is in a horrible condition, and despite the trickery of an administration using rigged numbers to make a case for re-election, it’s clear that we’re in serious trouble.  Perhaps worse is the fact that in Europe and around the globe, the problem of sovereign debt is now choking off economic growth.  The European Union teeters on the verge of collapse, and yet they continue the dishonest and immoral policy of putting good money after bad.  Worse for we Americans, our own Federal Government and Federal Reserve have joined in the delaying tactic.  All they really hope to accomplish at this point is to stall the inevitable long enough to cross the finish line in November.  The question now becomes: Can they?

While the banking and financial  segments remain in global turmoil, the larger domestic issue of immediate importance is the dramatic and persistently horrendous unemployment numbers.  The most reliably consistent numbers from perhaps the most thorough analysis tell us that total unemployment now stands around 23%, despite the rosy picture created by the U3 numbers reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  That is a dangerous number, because it implies certain sociological results that will tend toward violent crime and general civil unrest.  Worse, despite the fact that the U3 number will probably continue downward with even greater seasonal adjustments now being implemented as the administration continues to tinker with the numbers, there’s another problem to consider:  The US is far from the only country seeing this sort of problem, as France is now reporting unemployment levels not seen since the Great Depression.

All of  this paints a frightening economic portrait, but it pales when measured next to the potentially devastating effects of a collapse of the US Dollar.  Nobody alive in the United States really has any sense of what hyperinflation looks like, but here’s a primer on the subject.  The problem is that such a collapse is now increasingly likely, since our own currency has been so thoroughly intermingled with the Euro.  It’s likely that if the Euro goes, our dollar will soon after follow, and we now find that the US Treasury has permitted large institutions with large positions in European derivatives to seek shelter under the umbrella of the FDIC.  This effectively puts US taxpayers on the hook if these things fail, and you can bet that if the Euro falls as it now seems is inevitable, we’re in for a rude awakening.

The military situation is becoming increasingly grim in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.   Having pulled out of Iraq less than one week ago, we are already seeing an increase in violence in that country.  Obama may have managed to pull us out of Iraq, but history may well record he had done nothing but to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Whether you favored the Iraq war, and the occupation that has persisted for most of a decade, it goes without saying that it is the height of foolishness to have spent so much in blood and treasure only to walk away when victory was close at hand.  It might have taken years more to stabilize Iraq completely, but it is doubtful that it will be able to stave off Iranian intervention.

Iran is now flexing its muscles in the Persian Gulf, and is threatening to close off shipping.  That would become an instant crisis, and might well start a round of hyperinflation as fuel prices would likely soar to levels scarcely imagined.  War in any form in the Middle East threatens our security, and threatens to cripple our economy, so that a foreign policy of the sort we’re now witnessing threatens to undermine the future of the United States.

Israel continues to be isolated, and it’s unlikely they’ll see any substantial relief while Barack Obama persists in office. More, leftist elements continue to work to undermine Israel by working in concert with a number of radical Islamic groups.  Israel must now concern itself with an increasingly antagonistic Egypt, and this suggests a scenario in which Israel may have little alternative to at some point make a vigorous defense either by preemptive strikes, particularly against Iran, but also perhaps against other states that continue to have designs on their nation.  This remains true for the so-called “Palestineans,” as well, and there are numerous scenarios by which this could rapidly escalate into full scale war.  Any such war is apt to have profound repercussions here at home, but also globally.

The next area of concern is the political realm.  We have a President that is quite happy ruling in a manner contrary to the will of the people, and he’s content to watch things collapse as he does so.  Worst, his overarching policy is one of bailing out the Europeans to no avail, and in supporting our historical adversaries around the globe.  Still, even with all of this agitating against his re-election, he is thought to have good prospects if only because the sheer number of dollars he has raised and will continue to raise will present a serious obstacle to any opponent.

Speaking of his opponents, all that have materialized thus far have serious problems that will likely make them less than thoroughly effective by way of opposition.  Romney will be obliterated on his flip-flops, and it will be shown that he is more like Obama than Obama himself.  Meanwhile, the strategy Obama is broadcasting is to run against Congress, specifically the House of Representatives now controlled by the Republicans, and they’re bending over backward at every opportunity to make deals with him and Harry Reid over in the Senate.  What neither Boehner nor any of the other establishment Republicans understand is that each time they make deals with Obama, they’re cutting their own throats.  Of course, RINOs like Senator Dick Lugar, (R-IN,) insist otherwise as he now prepares to face a primary challenge of his own.

Add to this the uncertainty about the future of Occupy Wall Street, and what role they’re apt to play in the coming elections, and what you have is a recipe for disaster, particularly if any of the economic or military possibilities discussed herein come to fruition.  I wonder when it comes down to it, and an angry mob packs the mall in Washington DC, whether Barack Obama will stand by the principle underlying his earlier declaration that “Mubarak must go.”   After all, what will happen when the American people are demanding he must go?  My bet is that such would be viewed differently, somehow.

The inevitable question I receive after such a posting is: “What can I do about it?”  The simple answer is “I don’t know.”  The more complete answer is “I can tell you what I am doing,” and leave you to judge for yourself.  You must prepare a few things, and those must include supplies of necessities such as food and medicine.  You must be ready to live without fuel.  You must be prepared to barter when necessary. You must absolutely be prepared to defend yourself, your home, and your family.  You must prepare your family to defend themselves in your absence.  Again, most of these things are measures prudent people should prepare for in all seasons, because one never knows what will happen, from natural disaster to war to almost any possibility. Maybe it’s the soldier in me, but I believe in preparedness, and whatever happens, I will always bet on those who prepare over those who don’t.  It’s really that simple.

On the political front, I will say this much: Americans must become engaged like never before, and here I am speaking specifically to Tea Party patriots, constitutional conservatives, and anybody else who wants to see the nation put back on a course that will promote prosperity.  We must demand that our elected representatives, our Senators, our state and local officials, and yes, our candidates for the nomination all set forth specific objectives for slashing expenditures, reforming government, and holding their feet to the fire.  We must be discerning and vigilant, and not be tempted to fall for what appear to be quick and easy solutions to problems that will not be resolved by half-measures.   Unless and until we the people make enough noise, politicians will pander but make no substantive change, because much like our President, they are in a perpetual delay tactic, every trying to stave off your discovery of how poorly they have done as stewards of your government.

On the bright side, we might just make it through, but if so, it will only be because we had done all we were able, and the sooner people recognize that this will take their direct involvement, the more likely we are to avoid disaster.  Part of what I learned as a young man in the Army is that to prepare is also to repair, because you will inevitably discover things in your preparations that will help you make the scenarios for which you prepare less likely.

It’s much like Y2K at the end of 1999, for which governments and businesses spent untold billions to prepare for a disaster that never substantially materialized.  Many talking heads have assumed that it didn’t occur because it could never occur, but this is dishonest.  The truth is that our preparations largely prevented catastrophe, but history records no catastrophe, so it’s hard to demonstrate.  All those preparations were not “for nothing,” because in truth what they did was prevent the disaster.  That’s the best reason to prepare. It always has been. As we lurch toward a new year full of frightening possibilities, it’s also a year of substantial hope.

 

The GOP Establishment Thinks You’re Stupid

Thursday, October 13th, 2011

We May Not Be So Stupid

Every day that passes, we learn more about the people who direct the Republican Party, and every day, we get new reasons not to like them.  If the people of New Hampshire let themselves be pushed into voting for Romney, they no longer need to tout the motto “Live Free or Die,” but should instead adopt the motto: “Principles don’t matter.”  Mitt Romney is using his influence in Nevada to try to push up their primary to push New Hampshire up to December.  To Republicans in New Hampshire, if you allow the Romney campaign to prod you forward, you are going to anger the people of your state.  Go ahead:  Hold your primary during the Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Year period, and prepare to reap the reward.  Allowing Mitt Romney to try to steal this primary is an unspeakable act, but polluting the holidays with partisan politics is abominable.  The GOP establishment thinks you’re stupid, and they think you will advance your primary into December in order to stay ahead of the others.  The party doesn’t care what will happen to your state, and they think you’re too stupid to notice.

Any state party that yields half of its representation at the national convention in order to permit one candidate to make a bigger splash than the others isn’t serving their electorate.  The Bush operatives still hold sway in Florida, the state that got this all rolling, and now it’s been a domino effect with New Hampshire looking as early as December to maintain its position at the front of the line.  Romney is weak in Iowa, and this is about supplanting the influence of Iowa.  You need to understand that this is an attempt to steal a primary season, to shorten it up, and to prevent any other candidate(s) from gaining traction, but more importantly, to prevent any Tea Party opposition from gaining traction. It also means there will be all those delegates yielded to the national party for the convention, which will effectively lessen the influence of every state.  The people of New Hampshire may be powerless to stop this, and they may not care to because they’ve been told the falsehood that it will improve their influence.  Either way, the country loses.

As this goes on, what you must know is that whatever the 8-pm (EST) blow-hard or his substitute on Fox News may tell you, Mitt Romney has no business being President of the United States.  Fox News has become the establishment Republican propaganda network, and the only thing they’re going to bring to mainstream conservatives is defeat in 2012.  Fox News is compromised in many ways due to the Rupert Murcoch/News Corp/phone-hacking scandal.  You can bet Obama’s DOJ will play that ace-in-the-hole next fall.  In the mean time, Obama and the Democrats are happy to see the Republicans nominate Romney because he is the one candidate in this race they are dead-certain they can defeat.

You’re being told to accept Romney because “he can win.”  I’ve got news for you: If (and that’s a giant “if,”) Mitt Romney can win, then so can anybody else, including “My Pet Goat.”  The simple fact is that Romney can’t currently top 30% in national polls, and there’s a good reason:  He’s a liberal.  He sounds vaguely conservative on a few issues, but in the end, Romney always, always shows his true intentions as a big government, progressive Republican, or as Mark Levin would call such people, “Re-pubic-ans.”

As Tammy Bruce offered today, “I’m wondering now, why the Republicans even should bother to vote in the primaries” as she explains since the Republican establishment is now telling us Romney is the guy.  Meanwhile, Cain is moving up as an answer to the establishment, but so is Gingrich.  Do you think we can beat Obama with these?  The truth is, if we nominate Romney, we deserve to lose.

It’s time to tell the GOP establishment: “No more! Enough!”  Are we willing to do that?  I am.  Here’s what I’m going to do: I’m going to treat the GOP like a dirty cop.  He should be a good guy, but he isn’t, and in most every respect, he’s as bad as the people from whom he’s been tasked to protect me.  You know what I think of such cops?  To hell with them! I love good cops, who keep the peace, shield the innocent, and do not partake of graft and corruption, and enforce the laws of our country.  When I see a bad cop, however, I don’t care what happens to him because when he battles with thugs, I simply view it as rival gangs at war.  That’s the Republican establishment, and the only way I can reduce their influence is to simply cease aggregating mine with theirs.  I’ll defend myself, thank you very much, because their sort of “protection” isn’t protection at all. It’s more like a protection racket.

I no longer care whether the Republican establishment defeats Obama or not.  If they succeed in getting their guy nominated, he’s not going to offer any relief from the attack our constitution is under, whether from Obama or his shills in the media and Congress.  The simple fact is that Romney and others like him simply won’t do what it takes.  I’ll say it again: Anybody But A RINO.

I’m going to focus on the Senate and the House, and every chance I get to stick it to the Whigs Republicans, I will take it.  The Republican party was founded in the name of a cause in search of liberty.  It will fail if it doesn’t seek to put liberty in the forefront once more, and the GOP establishment is no better than the Democrats in that respect.  None.  You voters in New Hampshire have a chance to send a message by standing this manipulative nonsense down.  Of course, the Romney people are in a hurry to tell you this will increase your influence, but they’re lying  to you.

We can’t win the sort of election we need in 2012 by being against something.  People prefer an affirmative reason to vote.  This is why McCain lost, but until his idiotic “suspended campaign,” Sarah Palin was able to boost him:  She was that affirmative feature of McCain’s campaign.  Whatever surge McCain ever had owed to her presence.  While I don’t know who Romney will pick as his VP, maybe somebody to draw in conservatives like Herman Cain, but whomever it is will not rescue his campaign.  If conservatives hope to actually reform this government, it’s going to require all  hands on deck for a real candidate, but in lieu of that, we’re going to need to learn that we can no longer afford to hold our noses.

If a “President Romney” continues the downhill slide of our country, will the left say it’s because “Romney was too liberal?” No. They will state with straight faces that it had been evidence of the failures of “conservatives” and “capitalism.”  Bank on it.

Tuesday’s Debate Demonstrated Our Problem

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

One of These? Please...

After some digging, I finally found the debate on Bloomberg TV.  I didn’t know we got that channel until I went looking.  Suffice it to say that I could have saved myself a good deal of trouble and faked my way through by guessing at the way it would go.   It wasn’t inspiring, and in fact, disappointing, not for the lack of fireworks, although there wasn’t much there either, but simply because there is nobody among the eight candidates who appeared Tuesday night that is worthy of endorsement.  It’s possible that if you took the best traits of each of them, you might cobble together a worthy candidate, but it seemed more like a staged coronation of Romney and a further opportunity to hammer Perry.

My assessment of the candidates, in no particular order:

Rick Perry: Better.  It’s obvious that he was the only candidate Karen Tumulty recognized at the table. While I’m no Perry fan either, this was a bit blatant.  She seemed to be seeking the approval of liberals everywhere as her questions all seemed to have a tone of indignant harumph about them.  Score Perry 20 points just for refraining from telling her to crawl back under her rock.

Michele Bachmann: That’s it? That’s the extent of her arguments?  How many times did she praise Mitt?

Jon Huntsman:  Who cares?  Everybody knows he’s in the room to make Mitt Romney look less liberal by comparison.

Herman Cain:  Blew it big-time on the 9-9-9 plan.  His insistence that the American people would hold Congressional feet to the fire to prevent the 9-9-9 from becoming 19-19-19 is laughable.  He’s either naive or dishonest.  I’m still willing to believe naive.  Also, he mentioned that he would be President so he would veto anything done to abuse his formula.  That’s all well and good while he’s still President, but hopefully, the country would go on a bit longer. What then?  Lastly, never say that “I have some candidates for that job” unless you’re willing to discuss them, because thereafter, it will look as though you’re hiding something, which you are.

Newt Gingrich: Too bad about Newt.  He’s a remarkably smart fellow, but his willingness to join with Nancy Pelosi on theGlobal Warming hoax damned him forever more.  Nobody will really trust Newt. Me included.

Ron Paul:  He made an excellent point about Sarbanes-Oxley, and also about Greenspan vs. Volcker.  Greenspan did help create the bubble. As usual, Paul is good as gold on economics but he’s a disaster on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum: Makes a good point about the importance of family with respect to poverty.  Otherwise, I think he was simply happy to be there.

Mitt Romney:  The good news for Mitt is that he didn’t say too much to get himself in trouble with the press, but every republican should be deeply troubled by what he did say.  Romney is playing a game of class warfare only slightly different from the Democrats, and he’s taking it in a different direction, but it’s the same thing.  He also lied about Romneycare.  In several ways.  Romney is precisely what we do not need: He’s a liberal.

We need to begin to ask the question about what it is to be a Republican.  We need to differentiate between conservatives and progressives.  Tonight’s debate served only to further muddy those waters.  What does the party stand for anyway?  If these people are representative of that, whatever it is, we’re in deep trouble.  Sure, if I could take Paul on economics, Cain on combative business savvy, Bachmann on confronting the welfare state, Gingrich on thoughtfulness, Perry on reducing regulation, and Romney on “looking presidential,” we might have something.  The truth is that we don’t have such an aggregate of good ideas and traits in one person.  If this is the pool from which we hope to draw the person who will defeat Obama, never mind restore our nation, I think it’s time to call Houston, because we have a real problem.

ABAR: Anybody But A RINO

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

Sorry, I've Had Enough

It has become increasingly clear that the Republican establishment is going to get in line behind Romney.  They’ve managed to freeze out Palin by moving up the primaries even if she had been inclined to run, and she was probably the one outsider who could offer a serious challenge, but with her decision not to run after lengthy contemplation and family considerations, it has left a vacuum in the party that Herman Cain is rushing to try to fill.  The problem is that Mr. Cain has no war-chest, and if he doesn’t pull in some substantial donors soon, he’s got no chance, but more importantly, it’s becoming clear based on his statements that he doesn’t actually intend to win.  Given that in 2008, Cain endorsed Romney, and considering that Romney is now running around suggesting that folks who don’t wish to vote for him should instead choose Cain, one might begin to wonder if the fix isn’t in.  Again.

We conservatives are looking down a dark tunnel, and what we’re now beginning to understand is just how the cloak of the establishment is smothering our party.  The establishment offers us another un-conservative loser, and even if we manage to get him elected, we’ve got a bigger problem: Once again, we will have a liberal republican in office who claims to be a conservative, and this will once again cause an undeserved defamation of conservatism.  We’re being told he’s the de facto winner, with a maximum currently of 30% of the GOP primary electorate.

It’s no different in function from the manner in which Capitalism has been besmirched.  We see a system that is called capitalism, but it is so overwhelmed by statism that it can in no way even approximate actual Capitalism.  The bail-outs, the exhausting controls, the increasing taxes, the ever-devaluing currency, the interventions in the market, and the endless mandates of an overgrown government guarantee that Capitalism is not now and has not been in existence in the United States for most of a century, if not longer.  Instead, what we have had throughout that period is known as a “Mixed economy” that is what its name implies:  A mixing between the appearance of capitalism and fact of a command economy.  Notice that in this argument, when something goes awry, it is always Capitalism that takes the black eye, and only seldom does the command-and-control edifice of statism ever receive criticism, particularly among the intelligentsia.

In much the same way, other things are also attacked for the sins of their substitute.  Consider the war on the Tea Party, whereby the Tea Party is labeled “terroristic” and “threatening” and “violent” and “racist,” while in fact, the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd has virtually all of those characteristics, including an undercurrent of anti-semitism bundled together with and disguised behind their hatred of the rich.  The media blamed Tea Party patriots for the downgrade just a month or so ago, but in truth, it was the statists who caused the downgrade by their intransigent inaction on deficit spending.  Notice that at no point did the major media or the responsible parties(Obama and Congress) go on record to blame anybody except the Tea Party.  As you consider this, you might recognize the trend.

In exactly this way, when George W. Bush was elected President on the basis of his “compassionate conservatism,” I knew from my experience with his administration in Texas that this merely meant he would be anything but conservative.  Some conservatives like to excuse him, saying he was “good on 9/11 and defending the country,” but let’s be honest enough to admit that even a complete buffoon like Al Gore would have defended the country, albeit probably less vigorously. Still, had Al Gore been president in 2001, I doubt whether we would have seen the GOP Congress legislating the TSA into existence.  I doubt whether subsequent social spending would have gone through, including the Bush-Kennedy education regime, or the program now known as Medicare part D.  The simple fact is that conservatives would have recognized all of these as the advance of statism, and would have mobilized against them.  Only rarely, such as in the case of Harriet Miers, did conservatives seek to challenge George Bush when he was governing in a decidedly un-conserverative fashion.

This is the reason I am most concerned about the upcoming presidential election season.  It’s true that Obama is a walking horror-show of predations against our constitution, but the truth is that Bush laid the groundwork for Obama’s misdeeds, aided six of his eight years by a Republican Congress that was sticking with their guy.  Let’s not kid ourselves about the disastrous results of another RINO in the White House.  You can pretend all you wish that in electing Romney, you are protecting the nation from Obama, but the simple truth is that you are merely helping to discredit conservatism.  In 2008, we were told that conservatism was to blame, and even now, they blame Bush for the bail-outs (while they hypocritically clamor for more,) and all along the way, what has become clear is that if conservatism is going to get the blame, then for a change, we should at least elect a conservative President.  With Palin now doing the establishment a favor by stepping aside for her personal reasons, and Christie endorsing Romney, and Cain being less than a strong candidate, it’s easy to see it coming again.

You can go to the polls and support one of these candidates if you like, but there isn’t one of them with a substantial chance to win who is also conservative, and I’m in no mood to vote for a fake.  If the Republican part establishment thinks they can get my vote with the torture of four more years of Obama as the only alternative, they’re mistaken, and I will likely sit out this presidential election.   Sure, I’ll vote the down-ballot, but I’ll leave the presidential slot unmarked.  I don’t buy the notion of “anybody but Obama.”  I’d rather an openly Marxist dolt like Obama be re-elected than to compromise my principles and help the statists propaganda against conservatism by putting forward a candidate who will be called a conservative, but will govern as a progressive.  Until the people of this country realize how thoroughly the GOP establishment has been jerking them around by continuing to put forward progressive Republicans, never mind the Marxist Democrats, there is absolutely no chance that we will recover, restore, or reform what now ails us.

I’ve grown fatigued with the notion that conservatives should shut up and get in line. I’m not interested, and for once, the moderates can get in line with me.   Those of you conservatives and Tea Party patriots who tire of this too should finally understand that you’re only undercutting yourselves when you support the establishment in the end, out of a sense of desperation.  You can tout “ABO” all you like, but I’m going to shout “ABAR” to any who will hear me: “Anybody But A RINO.”  I mean it, but until conservatives finally sit out a presidential ballot en masse, the establishment will continue to offer you pathetic choices.  They no longer take your threats seriously because so many of you haven’t held to it.  If you want real change, it truly must begin with you.

Mitt Romney Won’t Get My Vote

Sunday, October 9th, 2011

This Guy? Please...

I can’t believe Mitt Romney is dredging up Michael Chertoff as a foreign policy adviser.  Chertoff is the former Homeland Security Secretary who lobbied for the so-called “naked-scanning” machines now in airports across the nation and profited from it.  He’s also the pro-amnesty shill who has repeatedly pushed the country in the direction of some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants.  For Governor Romney to bring in this guy is akin to inviting the fox into the henhouse, which unless you’re a fellow fox, would seem a remarkably bad idea.  There are at least three things wrong with Chertoff, and probably a good deal more, but if Romney thinks this is the man to whom he should turn for foreign policy advice, I can’t imagine that Romney is a man I can support for dog-catcher, much less for president.  Irrespective of what others may say, or endorse, there’s simply no way I can support this un-conservative pretender.

Add to this the latest news that Romney’s son and one of his fund-raisers may have been using campaign ties of his father’s 2008 in finding investors for his project, and what you begin to wonder is if he’s not the sort of crony-capitalist we fear him to be.  Whether there was any sort of illegality isn’t really the question, as we all know how people leap through the holes in laws, but a question of the propriety of all of this, and whether it represents the sort of judgment we ought to expect from a president.  On the other hand, given the crony capitalism running wild in Washington DC, particularly at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it may be that he’d fit right in.

Worse yet, it turns out that Romney has appointed a full-blown environmental nut-job while he was governor, and actually pandered to leftists over coal-fired power plants.  From the Wall Street Journal article linked above:

With Mr. Foy by his side, Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people,” he said.

Can you imagine anything more ludicrous?  Perhaps taken together with the headlines of the day, we can put this into context: The Obama administration’s EPA has decided to regulate more coal-burning plants out of existence, to the tune of 28 giga-watts of power generating capacity.  This is a prescription not merely for the destruction of thousands upon thousands of jobs in American coal mines, but a complete catastrophe for the economy in general.  This is a program of intentional impoverishment aimed squarely at the American people, and as recently as during his term as governor, Romney was aboard with this sort of ridiculous program.  He’s a dangerous panderer as well as being the liberal in this race.  Please don’t offer that Huntsman is worse, since I believe he’s in this race only to make Romney appear less liberal by comparison.

I’ve written two other articles on Mr. Romney, and the more I learn about his record, the less I like him, and that’s to say I don’t think he’s worthy of the job, and certainly not the sort of president a beleaguered America needs.  I can tell you with certainty that I cannot now or at any future point support a Romney candidacy, because all of these things combined with the Massachusetts health-care initiative signed into law by his hand resembles Obamacare in almost every important detail.  In short, Romney is the next best thing to Obama from the standpoint of an honest conservative.  Only in the deepest blue of blue states could a person such as this pass for a “conservative.”  I will have no part of supporting him.  There is no running mate with whom you could couple him that could present any improvement.  None.  Mitt Romney is the definition of RINO.  Nominate this guy, and it will guarantee four more years of Obama.

You can read my other articles on Romney here:

Hope Springs Eternal

Saturday, October 8th, 2011

Hope?

I’ve spent some time thinking about Governor Palin’s decision against running for the presidency in 2012.  Many people are wrestling with it still, particularly those people who have poured so much of their efforts into making it a reality.  Even now, over on FaceBook, there’s a group devoted to urging her to reconsider. They’re calling their group Sarah Palin’s Earthquake, and they have chosen that name because of a remark Sarah Palin made in a recent interview in which she said it would take an earthquake to cause her to reconsider.  They want to become that earthquake, and in just more than a day, they have added thousands of members.  I suppose one never knows what might happen, and these intrepid Palinistas are intent upon at least letting their reluctant champion know that they still want her to lead them.

The odds against them are long, but they’re accustomed to that condition, as these determined warriors look around, much like me, and see that no rational alternative to Palin now exists in the Republican field.  I could inventory them and their flaws for you, but if you’re reading this post, you already know the score.  The sad truth for most of Palin’s supporters is that there really aren’t any plausible alternatives that will be even roughly shoe-horned into the great void we had hoped she would fill in the GOP field.  Many people are noting that sad state of affairs with a tone of fatalistic sobriety.  For my part, I have chosen to look at all of this somewhat differently.  For three years running, in various forms, we’ve asked her to run, and she has finally demurred.  I remember the occasion of my own letter to her, and what I said in closing:

“We want you to run, yes, for our own selfish purposes, because we selfishly dare to love our country and our lives. That’s why they hate us. It’s why they hate you. Make your choice, make it in full knowledge of the costs to you and yours. Make it for your own purposes. If you choose not to run, we will understand, though we will be sad, and we will go in search of our back-up plan. We will go in search of the ‘next-best.’ You’ve already borne more upon your back than any thousand candidates have had to bear.”

This now seems to have been the manner of the choice she has made.  We are now sad, but thus far, in our search for a “back-up plan,” we have come up empty.  That’s the unmitigated truth of the matter.  Once again, we are left in the apparent position of having to settle for the best of the rest, whomever that may be.  The others are undoubtedly calling upon her to throw her support behind them, and I expect that will the focus of the media going forward.  The expectation is that wherever Palin throws her support, if she does at all, her legions of supporters will join her in that endeavor like robots.  The problem with this predictable narrative from the media and the establishment is that Palin’s supporters have never been automatons, neither for the political establishment, nor even for her. Palin’s supporters simply aren’t built that way, and will in the end make the decisions they each individually feel are best.  It’s the difference between a fanatic and a supporter, and those who have followed Sarah Palin all this time aren’t mere “fans.”  I continued:

“Nobody will blame you. The part of me that loves justice almost hopes you will walk away. The direction of the country isn’t your fault. It’s ours. We let this happen. We let them cheat and lie and steal our values. We watched them do it. We don’t have any right to ask you to do it for our sake. Where were we? Where was our engagement? Most of us went about our way, trying to pretend what was happening hadn’t been real, or worse, participating in the debasement. There’s no reason you should go it alone on our behalf. In truth, I have nothing to offer by way of compensation except to promise I will not abandon you on the field – that you will not lead the charge into battle only to find your legion has deserted you. The rest may retire from the fight. I will be there, until the end or until victory. I ask only that you choose for the sake of all you love. This may be our last chance. Good luck in all things, Governor Palin.”

Well, that first bit might not have turned out to be one-hundred percent of the truth, but it’s certainly bound to be in the ninetieth percentile.  A few are hurt to the extent of blaming her, but it wasn’t Sarah Palin who left us without options.  It isn’t her fault that the country is in decline.  It isn’t her fault that we let the statists cheat us and lie to us and steal from us our values as a culture and as a people.  That the GOP establishment seems to have managed to pull off another end-run around us is not Sarah Palin’s fault, but ours.  We could have done things differently, and the truth is that if we are now without plausible presidential alternatives to Sarah Palin, it is we who have left ourselves in that position.

Back when I was describing the choice, I was describing it as much for me as for her or for others who might see and consider it.  I haven’t ever wanted to deceive myself or others, and while I knew at the time there were a thousand good reasons for Sarah Palin to enter the race, I also knew that they were not necessarily of a value equal to some reasons leveraging against her entry.  I don’t expect anybody to live for my sake, or the sake of my needs, wants, or wishes; neither in my thinking then, nor in my feelings now.

Sarah Palin doesn’t owe us anything:  Not a presidential campaign, not a campaign for other candidates, nor even an explanation that will satisfy one and all.  It’s her choice and her life, and she must consider these things for her sake and the sake of her most precious values.  She has chosen, and whether I agree with her choice, or the voices of millions disagree, it is her choice and her destiny to do as she feels necessary.  I respect that choice, knowing that as it is her right to choose, my wishes to the contrary have no ability to invalidate her choice.  If she does reconsider, I will respect that choice too, and I will continue to support her in that endeavor.  My pledge was sincere.  I meant it, and I still do.  If she chooses against running, instead to rally the troops on behalf of a cause in which we all agree, I will be there.  It’s as simple as that.

From the moment she first walked out onto the national stage, and brought the energy of her message of freedom to the crowd, I have been there.  To whatever degree she continues to do so, I will still be here in firm support, but I will always respect her choice to determine her course for her own sake and the sake of all she loves.  That’s a big part of what has made the freedoms of our country unique, and it is this that I cherish above all:  This is still the land of self-determination, and while government’s shackles tighten around us like a noose, I am happy to see even one among us escape unshackled on her own terms.

As some have noted, particularly Tammy Bruce, we have a choice, and it comes down to this:  We may be staring down the barrel of a loaded gun with the less-than-satisfactory GOP nomination choices for president remaining from among which to choose.  There are still other things we can do, including joining with the Tea Party, those of us who haven’t already, and begin the process of taking over the Senate and strengthening in the House so that no matter which candidate of either party ultimately occupies the White House, we can still control the legislative agenda, and thereby limit the power of a president we may not fully support, or support at all.  That idea isn’t without flaws, and it certainly isn’t a perfect solution to the problems now confronting us, but it surely offers us more hope than to surrender in sadness or to campaign against the seemingly inevitable.  Nothing is written in stone about the outcome of this battle, and this remains the country of self-determination, at least for now.  However we choose to carry out that fight, each and every one of us, let us do it in our own ways as best we can, while we still can.  Hope springs eternal because we still love our country and it’s still worth the fight, whomever we elect, irrespective of who may choose to run for high office.  If we are to save this country, we must begin now.  My hope is that it’s not too late.

One Thing The Nominee Must Do

Friday, October 7th, 2011

Nominee Must Oppose This

I have been discussing what sort of nominee the Republican party must now find.  Given what we are now seeing, it is imperative that the nominee of the Republican party commit to one thing above all others: The program known as Obamacare must be repealed, and stripped from the law, in every possible, conceivable way.  It must be pulled out by the roots.  Even now, the government is beginning to fashion health-care plans for the rest of us who now have our own health-care, because they know they will be driving private health insurance out of the business.  Any of the Republican candidates who wish to obtain my support will be required to commit to the complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and if the candidate will not pledge to do this, I will have no part of his or her support.  Obamacare must be overturned.

The program known as Obamacare is tyranny packaged up as a benefit.  Let me be clear for the sake of any who had misunderstood the nature of Obamacare: It’s not going to provide “benefits” to anybody.  Instead, it’s going to provide a death sentence to millions.  If a given candidate will not commit to its repeal, it is symptomatic of an unwillingness to seriously confront the crisis this country now faces in a run-amok set of entitlement programs that have become the overwhelming burden on those who produce wealth.  I need no such candidate.  I will support no such candidate.  In watching the various debates, among the alleged front-runners, one of them has not, to my memory, committed to that repeal.

Health-care isn’t a right.  Health-care insurance cannot be a right.  One cannot have a right that must be borne into actualization by the efforts of others.  If we examine this  idea carefully, we must recognize that what Obamacare promises to implement is a “right” to health-care to be financed by every working person to the benefit of all persons.  This is Marxism.  It’s also a guarantee that we will have a reduction in the kind of health-care that will be available, in terms of its advancement, its technical sophistication, and the competence of those who will administer it, as well as the conditions under which it will be administered.

We are confronted with a serious assault upon the lives and liberties of every American, except perhaps those wealthy enough to escape all of this.  I don’t blame anybody who would use their wealth to escape the plague of Obamacare, unless they also simultaneously stiff the rest of us to suffer under it.  That is an inexcusable state of hypocrisy that characterizes the leadership of the left, in Congress, and in the executive branch, but also in Hollywood and in other leftist social circles.  There are also a number of people on the elite side of the GOP who fit this mold:  They express tepid support for undoing Obamacare, at best, while knowing they have the means to flee its oppression.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think it’s clear. We can begin to tally all the characteristics a Republican nominee must bring to the game, but an undaunted commitment to the eradication of the Obamacare law must be among them, and if it isn’t, there is no way on Earth that I will support that nominee.  I would prefer to have four more years of open tyranny than the pretense of opposition while it becomes the officially endorsed position of the GOP, and thereby, the country.

I Don’t Know If Any of Them Are Fit

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

The "Not Ready for Primetime" Players?

As you know, I don’t support Rick Perry for a whole host of reasons, particularly having been a Texan throughout the time he’s held state-wide office, and knowing he’s got a number of really ugly crony-capitalist skeletons in his closet.  With that in mind, I must say that this story about the hunting lease, and the rock with a racial epithet stinks to high heaven.  I realize that a hint of racism would disqualify a candidate from consideration, and well it should, but to extend this story to impute some racist motives on the part of Rick Perry is simply going too far, and is mere race-baiting nonsense.

Perry has done himself enough damage with his poor debate performances, but what I found stunning in the aftermath of the Washington Post story on this greatly overstated controversy about Perry was that Herman Cain exploited it to make an attack on Perry, by calling the instance “racially insensitive.”  He later walked that back once the full context became known, but his reflex to run with that sort of inflammatory story has caused me to question the temperament of Cain more than Perry.  The only thing perhaps more disgusting was the fact that even after the story had begun to lose some of its initial traction, Romney’s camp pounced once they thought it was safe.  Like you, I believe every one of these candidates should be thoroughly vetted, but I think we’re coming to the point in American politics where the “Gotcha” business that Newt Gingrich has lamented is getting out of hand. Rather than focus on the real shortcomings of the candidates, we’re off on these over-hyped tangents.

This display of wretched gutter politics makes me question the lot of them.  When it boils right down to it, none of them are really exhibiting the character I expect from a president.  Perry has a whole host of problems on a substantial basis of facts, as does Romney, and as I’ve been learning more recently, Herman Cain as well.  The problem is that when you see them pile onto a story like this, you know it’s not about substance.  It’s about scoring “Gotcha” points.  For Herman Cain to now sink to the level of playing the race card, after already having accusations of racism thrown at him over his remarks about “brainwashed blacks” is a matter of a serious failure in judgment.  Romney ought to know better, but he’s apparently happy to stand back and let others make the first attacks and then stick his two cents in and kick his opponent once he’s already on the ground.  That sort of cowardly play is just what you’d expect from a candidate who seems to seek victory by default.

All in all, it’s a pretty sorry state of affairs.  Here we have nine candidates in the race, and they seem muddled and dominated by the media narratives of the day, and that may be the saddest declaration about this field one can make:  None of them seem fit.  More fit than Obama?  Yes, perhaps that’s the case, but are any of these really the people we want to lead(not run) this country?  While the jury is still out on the question, I believe it’s become time for we voters to being answering it.  It’s astonishing that at this late date, what we now seem to have is a group of people engaged in a fight to avoid the worst “Gotcha” moments, but apart from some platitudes, and a horrible lack of policy details, I’ve yet to see anything particularly compelling from any of them, and none of their records offer much solace.

They all need more vetting, and as they become the front-runner, or challenge the front-runner, one after the other, we need to examine their records and their history in office and in business.  Issues like this Perry story are simply concocted nonsense in an attempt to drive the election according to a media narrative.  If we’re to select a candidate, that candidate should have an impeccable record in office, and we must do our best to avoid this sort of tabloid journalism.  It simply doesn’t serve the electorate, and while it can create many nifty headlines and soundbites, it doesn’t do anything to take us in the direction of restoring our country.  I can think of thirty reasons not to support Perry, but none of them have anything to do with some painted-over, turned-over rock on a hunting lease in West Texas of which Governor Perry may have once been aware as an artifact of a terrible, but thankfully bygone era.

Chris Christie Finally Out – Who’s Next?

Tuesday, October 4th, 2011

What does it mean?

I don’t know how he could say it any more plainly.  He was so adamant in his statements today that it seems there could be no way he would change his mind.  A few are clearly disappointed, particularly in the media, and they’ve already run off in pursuit of a new victim.  The media loves to gin up candidates, and then chew them up and spit them out.  Sarah Palin’s right about this, and I’ve said it before:  The media is playing what she calls “flavor of the week,” and I’ve called “savior of the month,”  all with the goal of crushing any candidate the Republican party might put up.  The goal is to wind up with the most liberal Republican possible, amenable to the media if their own guy should blow it, and tolerable to the GOP establishment.  While they push Herman Cain for the moment, we all know how this will likely end: Even if he somehow were to overcome Romney in the long run, and win the nomination, the media will act to destroy Cain too.  This is why the Republican party must nominate somebody who has been vetted already.  The media will save its most lethal ammunition, to be deployed in the general election.

Within minutes of the beginning of Chris Christie’s press conference, a story posted on Politico aimed at bringing up the next one the media would happily throw into the meat-grinder.  The story offered is that attorneys who represent Sarah Palin have been talking to states about the filing date deadlines.  To be honest, this could mean nearly anything, but the narrative being put forward suggests that Palin may be getting ready to jump in.  Maybe.  The problem is that I’ve lost all confidence in the media, and I don’t know what it means.  I’ve become a skeptic, not of Sarah Palin, but instead of all the media tidbits put in circulation each day.  To me, it’s no longer an issue for discussion:  Sarah Palin will announce a candidacy, or she will tell us she’s not running.  Either way, it’s not going to change my immediate future because I’ve decided to carry on as if she will run, and for a simple reason:  She’s the candidate I believe in, I know her record, and I know it compares favorably against any Republican already entered, or any whose names I’ve heard under discussion.

When I saw the Drudge Headline blaring: “Palin Time,” did my pulse quicken?  To borrow a phrase, “You betcha!” Once I saw it was a link to the same story I’d read from a link on Twitter two hours before, I resumed normal operation.  Every Palin-supporter I know is ready to roll.  Every person to whom I speak is hoping the day will come soon.  Until the day she announces her plans, I’m not going to waste many minutes in contemplation of that moment, and while like any of my friends, I’ll cheer when it comes, between this moment and that one, when I discover along with the rest of the world what her plans will be, I am going to continue to prepare for what will come after that moment.

The challenges of any political campaign are many, and while I savor the competition, I know the reality:  It will be a tough process, and it’s going to require all hands on deck, with as much devotion as we’ve ever poured into anything, and maybe a good bit more.  Like many of you, I made a trip to Walmart this morning, and I’ve handed out The Undefeated to potential allies already.  We’re going to need millions of them.  If Governor Palin decides to enter, as all of hope and believe she will, I intend to be already moving, already gaining ground, and already setting the stage for what I believe will be a pivotal campaign in American history.  The truth is that as much as this will be Sarah Palin’s fight, it will be our fight too, and a chance to save our country, maybe our last.  I refuse to entrust that future to cynicism or complacency or the simple folly that better, more able men will take my place.

It is now, if ever there had been a time in modern history when Edmund Bourke’s lament applied, “when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.“  You may know it better by the oft-used “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”  What his actual words reveal is that he knew not only that good men must stand, but that they must stand as one, together.  Does this not describe our position more thoroughly than the more common interpretation of Burke’s words?  I submit to you that it does, and for us to prevail, we will need to live by its intent.

As I’ve said, I no longer put enough stock in anything the media tells us to read any tea leaves from Politico’s story.  I also know that if it’s true, and its implications are perfectly correct, it doesn’t change anything in my immediate plans.  I’ll work with O4P and C4P and other Palin supporters wherever I find them, however I can.  I’ll still be standing on my little soapbox talking to any who will listen.  I’ll continue to work among and within my family, my friends, and my community as best as I can.  The Tweet that went out from @PeterHambyCNN sums up my view:

the line out of Palin-world: the race is still “wide open”

Indeed, the race certainly remains wide open, and I will pursue it as such.

Will Karl Rove Tell Us It’s Too Late for Christie Too?

Saturday, October 1st, 2011

They Think We Can Win With This Guy?

I should be fair.  It’s not simply Karl Rove, but the whole GOP establishment class(which George Will says doesn’t exist,) demonstrating this double-standard in media punditry.  Despite her impertinence in other respects, at least S.E. Cupp included Christie in her demanding article of Friday, but I’m beginning to wonder if all of the attention on Christie isn’t intended for another purpose.  While it’s difficult to stomach the hypocrisy of those who have argued that it’s too late for a Palin entry, saying precious little about a prospective Christie entry in the same context,  this could be a media phenomenon with another purpose entirely.  What if by holding forth all of  this Christie speculation, the GOP establishment is trying to accomplish something else entirely?  What could that be?  With the sudden spectacle of an accelerated primary calendar, we must consider what else may be afoot.

The Bush people are still strong in Florida, much as they remain in Texas.  The recent move of Florida’s GOP primary to January was done with the advice and blessing of the GOP establishment there.  This is widely seen as a way to prop up Romney, and to lessen the impact of insurgents, particularly of the Tea Party stripe.  It may also be a manner in which to eliminate down-ballot challengers in what otherwise would have been hotly-contested congressional primaries.

The GOP establishment understands that if they are to have their guy, they probably will need to go with Mitt. They may view him as imperfect to their ends, but he’s close enough, and they think he can win a general election against Obama (if there is one.)  What moving the primaries up does to candidates is to shorten the time they have to grab mind-share in the electorate.  At present, Romney is probably the clear front-runner, and to kill off any insurgents will require them to get this over with quickly.

At the same time, Christie may be used as a delaying tactic.  If they can cause Palin to hold of just a while longer in entering, assuming she will, then the longer she holds off, the narrower her window will be, particularly in light of this accelerated schedule.   For reasons we’ve discussed at length, there are many good reasons for Palin to hold off in the conventional schedule, and the GOP establishment knows this which is why they spent the entirety of the spring and summer trying to goad her into an earlier entry, to which they would have responded with a Christie or Daniels or even Jeb Bush.

With Romney now having withstood a serious challenge for the top spot by Rick Perry, they’ve come back around to the realities which may mean that they’re left with Romney as their best remaining bet.  Don’t be surprised that after another week of speculation, Christie comes out and says “Well, it’s just way too late now folks.”  This will then be used as a way to hammer Palin if she enters thereafter, so as to attack her with their continuing meme of sabotage.  Of course, she’ll quickly overcome that narrative, and the establishment knows it too, which is why they’ve hurried up the primary schedule:  They will try to knock Palin out by depriving her of the time she needs to carry the ball all the way down the field in time to score.  I believe this underestimates Palin’s appeal by a fair margin, and it may be the establishment’s last available timing-based play to keep her from the nomination if she chooses to pursue it.

If she gets in before Christie swears off his own entry, he might not demur at all, leaping in behind her, saying that while he thought it’s too late, if Palin can make a go of it, so can he.  What all of this may boil down to is an attempt by the establishment to wrest control of the timing card from Palin.  They’re trying to place Christie into the position she has occupied all these months, and the willing media, particularly FoxNews, is willing to go along.  The liberal press will go for anything that creates turmoil in the GOP, particularly between the establishment and the base, so they’re along for their part in this whole thing.

As I suspected, it will come down to careful timing, and as I believe based on previous instances, Governor Palin may be the master of this sort of thing.  She has demonstrated very good instincts and this close to the end of the beginning, I don’t think she’s likely to make any missteps, thereby turning it into what the establishment hopes will bethe beginning of the end.  Expect the unexpected, and be ready to roll.

Revolution by Suspended Elections?

Saturday, October 1st, 2011

Ready to Snap?

I try to steer well clear of conspiracy theories on this site, but occasionally, circumstances and events will lead you to seriously consider some of them.  This week, we had at least two instances of powerful Democrats calling for a diminution of our Republic by extra-constitutional means.  As I covered them, there was the case of Peter Orszag decrying the slow and ponderous process of democracy, and the other was the case of North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue allegedly joking that we should suspend congressional elections for two years to let the members work for a while without immediate consequences from voters.  Most people who have reviewed the audio question whether Perdue was joking, but on Friday, this story gained a good deal more traction when Rush Limbaugh brought it to the world’s attention with a story in the CanadaFreePress: Warning: The Threat of Suspended Elections is Real.

While this entire episode is somewhat disconcerting, we are easily heartened by remembering that such an action has never been undertaken even under the worst circumstances of our Civil War.  If ever there had been a President with the plausible excuse to try such a maneuver, it had been Abraham Lincoln, yet while the war raged, he did no such thing.  For a US President to even begin contemplating such an unprecedented idea would suggest a level of treachery and treasonous intent well beyond anything we have ever seen in the US.  The very idea of suspended elections is anathema to our core principles, when we remember them, and the fact of our sparse historical educations may leave us open to those who would actually consider such things.  This brings us to the question of Barack Obama’s temperament and his suitability for the office to which he has been elected.

In the CanadaFreePress article, Juid McLeod offers this on the subject of Obama:

“Now when we have a narcissistic Obama plunging in the polls, a democrat governor in North Carolina is pushing the envelope for suspending elections and covering up a notion she dropped a bombshell by claiming she was only using hyperbole to make a point for a Rotary Club.”

What McLeod offers here is what many of Perdue’s critics have asserted: That the line about suspending elections wasn’t a joke or sarcasm as she’s since claimed, but instead a sort of trial balloon on behalf of the Obama administration.  That sort of tactic is not unknown in Washington circles, and to be honest, it might not be only the Democrat establishment that is willing now to contemplate such a tactic.  There are many Washington-insider GOP establishment types who would really prefer to avoid a re-election in the coming year if they could because the grass roots conservatives and Tea Party folks are offering challenges across the board.  In fact, some now think the move of the Florida primary to an earlier date is a play in the direction of closing off Tea Party-friendly candidates, and to an extent, they may well have a point.  While in certain respects, it could play a lesser role at the presidential nomination level, this effectively kills off many of the primary challenges that might otherwise have been offered at the Congressional level.  In effect, this whole effort to move up the primary schedule by Republicans may be the play of the establishment in defense against a conservative and Tea Party insurgency, not merely to the White House, but to the rest of the ballot.

“If the election were held tomorrow,  Obama would go down in a landslide strikingly more humiliating than the shellacking he and his party got—and never got over—in the midterms.”

I believe this is fairly accurate.  We’ve known for some time that the President’s polling numbers have been sliding downhill at an accelerating pace, and pollsters and pundits like Caddell and Schoen urged Obama not to run, while Dick Morris now insists that he will not. (Let’s be careful to remember Morris has been substantially less accurate in predicting the political climate than your uncle’s bum knee in predicting the weather.)  It was not only Obama who received the “shellacking,” as an unprecedented number of Republican establishment types also went down to primary defeat.  Still, it is true that Obama has looked potentially “land-slideable” for some time.  Obama’s like most any other politician in his desire to maintain and extend his power, but how he would manage to suspend elections is difficult to fathom, but perhaps that’s the key.  McLeod continues:

“But the 2012 election is more than a year away, and the man who made it all the way to the most powerful office on earth sans identity documents has all the booty, and the absolute power it brings, at his command.  This is Obama’s well-stocked position at a time when only suspended elections would guarantee his re-election.”

It remains true that Barack Obama has been willing to carry out policies and strategies for their implementation that no previous presidents have even seriously contemplated.  What would it take for Obama to carry out such a coup d’etat against our constitution?  Violence?  Riots?  Certainly, one would think something even more traumatic than a civil war or insurrection, if Lincoln is to be our touchstone, but is it reasonable to expect Obama to restrain himself in any way if it is he who is driving the insurrection? McLeod seems to think otherwise:

“A dangerous new chapter is being written in American history that, if successful, is destined to impact the history of the West.  It’s called ‘Re-Election by Suspended Election Revolution’.  Patriots who want their grandchildren to grow up in a Marxist-free America should start the counter revolution called the ‘Revolution for an Obama-free America’ and they should start it “like yesterday”.”

It’s quite clear that Obama is unlike previous presidents inasmuch as he is willing to undertake actions that his predecessors would not, for instance, willfully ignoring laws enacted by Congress in refusing to enforce them, in matters of immigration, and frankly on any other matter that suits his administration.  We are learning from “Operation Fast and Furious” that there exists a cadre of people within his administration who are willing to sacrifice Americans and Mexicans to create an excuse for the restricting of gun sales, so what would lead anybody to suggest this administration would not go further still in maintaining power?  He may even have willing accomplices in the establishment of the GOP, still smarting from their own losses to the Tea Party, and with all this in mind, one can only imagine what sort of “bipartisan concessions” Congress might be willing to accept in the face of some ginned up or real emergency.

As I have said from the beginning, I tend to avoid conspiracy theories, but the problem is that in this case, there’s too much evidence to suggest that the potentiality is there, because the panic is there,  so that the intent may be there also.  Obama has a well-documented presidential record of driving our economy off a cliff, flouting the law, instigating unrest, and instituting extra-constitutional policies without reference to the rule of law.  In short,  he’s already taken on the appearance and behaviors of a dictator in many key ways, and it’s really not a giant leap to imagine that he could push the envelope a good deal further in the name of maintaining his power.  He’s desperate, and he’s building his army who will be happy to support such an operation.  Whether he will actually attempt something of the sort is perhaps a matter of controversy, but he’s clearly demonstrated the audacity and capacity for worse.

What S.E. Cupp Doesn’t Understand

Friday, September 30th, 2011

Pushing a Broken Narrative

CNN has posted an article by S.E. Cupp and I must say I disagree with Ms. Cupp completely.  She argues that the Christie and Palin question is a detriment to the GOP.  Add Ms. Cupp to the long list of people trying to tell us when it’s too late for this one or that one.  Lately, it’s become an absurdity to watch.  I can’t imagine that it’s possible that she believes her own impatience ought to drive the party’s choices, but there she is demanding: “Time’s up, Christie and Palin. In or out?”  Excuse me if I fail to take Cupp’s complaint seriously, declared as if she has anything to say about it.  Perhaps she should return to tweeting all things Tony Stewart.  Maybe she would have told Reagan he had better jump in.  Who knows, but more to the point, who cares?  What Cupp’s column demonstrates is the arrogance of the media in its attempts to  influence events according to their agenda.  Besides, while this article is posted on CNN, I know that Cupp’s associations have included The Daily Caller, and of course FoxNews, so I’m not surprised to see her further this particular narrative.

I would like Ms. Cupp to substantiate the following claim:

“And now, the will-they-or-won’t-they game has flipped from fun and energizing to damaging to the party. Christie and Palin now do conservatives more harm than good.”

I disagree, and her article doesn’t explain this charge very well.  It seems to consist of an assertion that Christie and Palin are taking “valuable resources and attention” from the rest of the field, but what goes unstated is that if the rest of the field was compelling, neither Christie nor Palin could get any attention.  The very fact that they get so much attention makes it clear that her thesis is based on broken logic, and indeed, the very existence of her own article demonstrates the point:

“With the question marks still lingering in the ether, and pundits on both sides of the aisle still performing their daily trapeze act — swinging back and forth between “yes, he’s running” and “no, she isn’t” — the focus on Christie and Palin has taken valuable resources and attention away from the rest of the field.”

She doesn’t need to pay it any more attention if she doesn’t wish to, but then she writes an article giving it more attention.  More, she goes on to make the claim:

“Because of those question marks, conservatives haven’t been able to invest fully in the candidates who are running. They haven’t been able to imagine one of them as president. They’ve held back support, money and endorsements, because they still don’t know that the field is settled.”

My laughter over this jewel cannot be quieted.  Conservatives “aren’t able to fully invest in candidates?”  Suddenly, Cupp’s argument seems more like a “Winning The Future” moment than any sort of conservative commentary.  There is absolutely nothing forbidding conservatives from committing to any of the declared candidates.  What Cupp offers here is actually an insight from the perspective of the establishment: These are people who hedge their bets, and the non-entries of Christie and Palin have essentially frozen a goodly sum of cash that might go into play should one or both ultimately announce, or swear off.

Cupp finishes off with this self-aggrandizing flourish:

“Time’s up, governors. If Chris Christie and Sarah Palin want to run, get in there. If not, definitively and convincingly take your names out of the running. Conservatives need to begin the arduous job of whittling down the field and picking their frontrunner. The fact that there have been five GOP straw polls in as many weeks with as many different winners is proof that these unanswered questions are creating a dangerous ambivalence among conservative voters.”

S.E. Cupp now runs the conservative movement?  Does she speak for you?  She doesn’t speak for me.  For whom is she speaking, anyway? That should be the question that you take away from all of this.  Which conservative voters have become “dangerously ambivalent?” I don’t know any.  Ambivalence will be measured by turn-out during the primary season next year, and not by gauging the number of big-dollar contributors still clinging to their cash.

I’ll give Ms. Cupp her due:  She did an excellent job of trying to advance a phony narrative.  All I can say is “Better luck, next time.”  As I pointed out in my coverage earlier Friday, this all comes down to strategy, and none of us should fall into the trap of believing Ms. Cupp doesn’t know that.  What we should also recognize immediately is that Cupp’s article is a part of somebody’s strategy, and when taken together with Williams’ article on FoxNews, it begins to paint the picture more clearly as to the identity of the driver of this narrative.

Who Is Behind “Americans Elect”?

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

Who's Behind This?

A friend sent me an interesting Youtube video a couple of days ago, and I’ve been spending some time watching it and thinking about it.  It’s a video from PBS consisting of an interview by Judy Woodruff of Doug Schoen and Elliot Ackerman, two of the principals of this group.  As I listened to them, this all sounded very enticing on its surface, but the longer they spoke, the more I began to wonder about who is behind all of this.  It seems like an effort to circumvent the ordinary electoral process, and when I think of that notion, the first thing that leaps into mind is George Soros and his effort to take over the Secretaries of State who oversee elections in all of our fifty states. I’m always a little wary about third party movements and similar efforts, because I always wonder who is behind them.  Before leaping into any such effort, it’s worthwhile to see what we can learn about such an organization.

Sometimes, it’s quite obvious, like in the case of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, but other times requires a good deal of investigating.  This case is not so obvious because they’re not mentioning any particular candidates, but instead a process of direct nomination skipping the two-party system.  Watch this fascinating video:

My curiosity got the better of me, and I immediately went out in search of answers.  I knew a little about Doug Schoen, but not enough to be thorough, and I had never encountered Elliott Ackerman before.  I started by going over to the AmericansElect.org website, and looked for an “About Us” or “Who We Are” page, and I found one.   It’s here:  Who We Are  Study this list.

Now understand that I don’t believe in guilt by association, but I want us to be careful and thorough.  Elliott Ackerman is the son of Peter Ackerman, and Joanne Leedom-Ackerman.  Douglas Schoen is a long time insider.  Also on the list is Carla Hills, former US Secretary of Housing and US Trade Representative.  As you look through the list, there is no shortage of movers and shakers, or those with direct ties to the elite.  This is a rather funny list of people to be working on a well-funded “grass roots” organization, isn’t it?

Speaking of funding, where are they getting all of that money?  Judy Woodruff asked directly, but Elliot Ackerman side-stepped the question.  We can come back to this in due course.

What is curious about this group is the number of connections it has with another group.  Just for the sake of curiosity, I compared the folks listed on the Who Are We page for Americans Elect to another group: The International Crisis Group.  So who what do these two groups have in common?  Well, Douglas Schoen and Carla Hills, but also an interesting tidbit: Joanne Leedom-Ackerman is part of this group.  As we remember from above, that’s Elliot’s mother.   This is a happy coincidence, with father and son working in one group with Doug Schoen and Carla Hills, along with many other elites, and wife and mother working in another group with Doug Schoen and Carla Hills, along with many other global elites.

Now while young Mr. Ackerman wouldn’t tell us who is contributing to the Americans Elect group operations, it could be interesting, for comparison only, of course, to take a look at who is funding ICG.  According to Wikipedia:

“Philanthropist George Soros who is chairman of the Open Society Institute is on the Board of Trustees.”

Isn’t that just the most amazing thing?  Just like clockwork, in walks the villain.  Now of course, since the young Mr. Ackerman declined to tell us who is bankrolling Americans Elect, we’ll have to leave that to our imaginations for the moment.  Ahem.

Now I don’t mean to tell you anything in particular about Americans Elect, but before a single person involves themselves with this organization, I would encourage them to ask the leadership to disclose who has funded their operations to date.  In short, I believe in full disclosure, particularly if an organization’s stated intention is to elect the next President of the United States.  In that spirit, here’s a little more about Pappy[Peter] Ackerman:  Founder of Americans Elect Used Tax Shelter Scheme

Just imagine:  Soros funds Obama.  Soros funds others.  Soros funds all sorts of things.  To be honest, when I heard Doug Schoen say the word “openness” while he and the young Mr. Ackerman refused to disclose the name(s) of donors, my antennae were immediately raised.  Remembering Schoen has urged Obama to decline renomination, I was further intrigued.  This is the signature maneuver of a Soros operation, and while all of this could be simple coincidence, as you know by now, in politics, those are actually damnably rare.  Watch out for this group.  There are a couple of ways this could go, and I’m wary about most of them.  While there is no direct tie to Soros as yet, the single degree of separation for so many of the key people certainly makes me wonder.  I could see this being used to exploit people to the detriment of the country, which is generally the trend with anything in which this elite jet-set is involved.

Thanks to my friend Carl who helped chase down some info for this article!

Election Seasons are Fluid

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Is Time Really Up?

It’s funny how some people get hung up on imaginary deadlines.  You can bet the media loves to create them, but what should you and I make of them? For months now, we have had the media and establishment DC-insiders try to tell us when Governor Palin should get in, or when it was too late, and all the rest of their game.  Worse, from my point of view, among some supporters, there’s an impatience that while understandable enough, always seems to gravitate toward the theme that “she must jump in NOW!”  Ladies and gentlemen, please permit me to suggest that there’s nothing to be gained from an entry now.

Today, in the blog section of the New York Times Online, the headline proclaims that “Palin is on the Verge of a Decision about Presidential Run.”  Well, knowing that, we should…do what?  The author of the piece again pumps up the expectation game, and again seems to push her toward entering sooner rather than later, and then another piece appearing in the Washington Post Online relegates Palin to “second tier status” based on a CNN poll that shows Palin over 20 points behind Obama in the head-to-head, which is at significant variance with that Marist/McClatchy poll of last week that finds Palin within 5 points of Obama.  So while one side tries to encourage her entry, the other side tries to dissuade her.   Both publications are establishment outlets.  When one observes the establishment presenting conflicting narratives, what you can guess with some confidence is that they’re hoping is to make something stick.  What neither of them suggests is that she should wait.  It’s either “jump now” or “go away.”

I’m not offering advice, but I’ll be honest: I like Governor Palin’s strategy of waiting.  Having waited this long in what seems a strategy to let some of this sort itself out, now that this strategy is beginning  to pay off, it’s no time to accept an arbitrary notion about some date on a calendar.  Late September?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Middle October?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Elections seasons are fluid, and the most successful candidates remain adaptive and flexible.  If you wish to succeed, you must adjust your plans to suit the situation on the ground.  I think the message to take from Governor Palin’s refusal to be trapped into some arbitrary time-table is this:  She wants to remain flexible to make her announcement when it will have the most impact.  A candidate committed to victory should do no less.

Be patient, my friends. Election seasons are fluid. Circumstances change.  Who would have predicted Perry’s verbal melt-down, excepting me and a few others, even three weeks ago?  Things change.  The unexpected happens.  People and situations are not perfectly predictable, or we wouldn’t bother with elections.  Our preferred candidate should do her best to remain flexible, and not getting pinned-down to a certain date or range of them is a great way to keep her options open.

Leading By Default?

Saturday, September 24th, 2011

Can I Win Without Speaking?

After the FoxNews/Google debate, it had begun to crystallize in the view of many Republicans is that Rick Perry isn’t the candidate many had hoped.  Capturing the straw poll in Florida on Saturday, Herman Cain reached new heights as Perry’s slide down hill has accelerated.  Bachmann has peaked and begun to taper off, while Gingrich, Paul, Santorum and Huntsman continue to struggle in the middle-to-low single digits.  This leaves Mitt Romney out front, not because he’s such a great candidate, but because to date, his chief opponents have grossly underperformed.  This begs the question most conservatives want most to ask: Is Mitt Romney capable of carrying the conservative banner into battle a year from now?  Most conservatives seem to believe the answer is a firm “no,” but it nevertheless leaves Romney in the position of the last candidate standing.  He’s done nothing revolutionary or proactive to seize the lead or stay at or near the front of the pack, but instead seems to have landed in the lead by default.  If we’re to defeat Barack Obama in November 2012, it’s going to take a stronger candidate than Mr. Romney has been to date.

When you examine his debate performance, the best you can say about Romney is that he hasn’t gotten into serious trouble, but he has flipped and flopped to the extent that most conservatives are looking elsewhere.  Mr. Cain’s straw poll victory on Saturday demonstrates the point:  While Romney doesn’t spend much energy on straw polls, knowing he will not win them in front of a conservative audience that constitutes the base of the party, and the overwhelming majority at straw poll events, he believes it’s better to avoid energetic participation and score poorly than to engage fully and still score a a small proportion of support.  He realizes the infinitely larger black eye that embarrassment would confer on his campaign.

What this demonstrates, perhaps more than anything, is Mr. Romney’s complete lack of courage for a fight.  He’s not even willing to make his pitch to conservatives, and that means he knows he cannot win their support except by virtue of being the only candidate remaining.  His unspectacular campaign mirrors his less-than-thrilling debate performances inasmuch as while he says nothing particularly offensive, he also fails to inspire even a tepid response.  In short, Romney’s strategy is to cruise carefully while avoiding clear debacles, and hope to survive to lead at the end, knowing that the anti-Obama sentiment prevailing among Republicans will be enough to carry him through the nomination.  That may be a suitable strategy for winning the nomination, but it’s unlikely to win the Presidency in 2012.

In Thursday night’s debate, Romney got into a battle with Perry who was busy criticizing the former Massachusetts governor’s health-care plan, and challenged him on changing between what he had said in his book and what he has been saying on the campaign trail about the plan’s possible application for the entire nation.  Romney said:

“I said no such thing”

and that “Romneycare” was merely:

“a state plan for a state.”

The problem with this statement by Romney is that he knew it to be untrue.  While in paperback, the idea that his health-care reform plan might have national application was omitted, the fact is that in his original hard-bound book, No Apology, it was clearly stated:

“We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”

Either Romney was lying, or he hadn’t read any but the paperback version of his book.  That puts his jab at Perry into better context:

“I actually – I actually wrote my book, and in my book I said no such thing.”

What Romney sought to imply about Perry’s book is that he hadn’t written it himself, and while that may very well be true, it calls into question if Mitt remembers writing his own.  This illustrates the problem with Romney too, because for all intents and purposes, he’s just another well-polished, glad-handing politician who is at least vaguely conservative, but to the conservative base, this speaks volumes about his lack of credibility across the board because it strongly implies a basic dishonesty in Romney’s approach and his policy positions.

This is the likely cause of Herman Cain’s runaway Florida GOP Straw Poll victory on Saturday.  In addition to the poor or at best fair performances of the two alleged front-runners in the Thursday night debate, combined with his own compelling performance, Cain suddenly looks a good deal more attractive to voters than to these two.  Better, if Cain continues to press forward, there is some chance that Romney will be forced to abandon his strategy of winning by default.

The top five in the Florida GOP Straw Poll:

  1. Cain: 37%
  2. Perry: 15%
  3. Romney: 14%
  4. Santorum: 11%
  5. Paul: 10%

This result is a testament to Cain’s strong performance in Thursday’s debate, but it also speaks volumes about the lack-luster performance of the supposed front-runners.  If Romney pursues his current course of avoiding engagement much longer, he risks falling into single digit territory particularly if there is a later entry into this race.  Perry is self-destructing, and while he does so, Romney plans to capitalize mostly by doing exactly nothing.  We Republicans should ask ourselves if that is the sort of candidate we expect to defeat Barack Obama as well as restore the nation now floundering economically under the weight of programs of the same sort Romney has himself implemented in his own state.  Perhaps this is key: When asked during the debate if he thought Obama was a socialist, he vacillated to avoid a direct answer.

With a general election on the horizon that promises a billion dollars of Obama campaign cash, we simply can’t afford another nominee who will not engage fully in this fight.  Romney may win the nomination by default, but he can’t win the general election that way, and the conservative base of the party knows it.  If he won’t speak the truth now, talking to the base of his party, will he ever?  If not, how does he intend to distinguish himself from Barack Obama?  These are the questions Mitt Romney must answer, but chances are that like most everything else, he’ll take a pass and hope to win by default.

Romney Bickers With Perry; Perry Stumbled; Cain, Gingrich Shined

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

Bickering Between Perry and Romney

As expected, the spectacle at center stage between Perry and Romney bickering over their respective interpretations of their books became a recurrent theme.  Perry took the first real shots at Romney, looking much too aggressive, and coming across as too eager to hammer his opponent.  Romney battled back, but as a Texan, I became  embarrassed for my Governor.  He looked confused at times, and ill-prepared.  By contrast, the stars of the show were Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, the first revealing his fight with stage four colon and liver cancer, and expressing his strong support for Israel, and his 9-9-9 plan, with Gingrich providing the real wit in the crowd.  Bachmann was flat, while Romney was wooden.

Cain had many great lines, but among his best was this gem:

“Ronald Reagan said we’re a shining city on a hill. We’ve slid down that hill.”
Gary Johnson had one of the funniest lines of the night:
“My next-door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration.”
The rest was  fairly standard. Aside from Cain and Gingrich, the remainder of the field sounded tired.  Romney’s rhetoric was particularly flat, and Perry came out too aggressively, and sounded confused by the end.  He has shown in two successive debates that he has a problem holding himself together for more than an hour.

Perry’s worst moment may have come when he seemed to double down on his compassion argument for the in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.  That was astonishing and drew some extended booing from the crowd.
This field needs something that’s missing.  I have my own ideas. What are yours?

Time To Go On Offense

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

Time to be Heard

One of the reasons that so many of my fellow Tea Party patriots and Palinistas are ready for a Sarah Palin campaign to begin it because we’ve become so tired of the smears against us.  Each time they mock Sarah Palin, those in the establishment are taking shots at us too.  Each and every time they smear Sarah Palin, they try to slip something in about those of us who support her that will tend to paint us as those people.  You know… Those people.  Yes, they mean us.  It’s true for Tea Party patriots too.  This interminable war on the Tea Party and Sarah Palin has gone on, will go on, and the establishment in DC will maintain its stance against us, either until we go away quietly, or until we displace them.

This country is ours, and for decades, ordinary Americans with extraordinary virtues have kept this country afloat while the party of DC keeps crashing the ship of state into the largest icebergs it can find.  I don’t know about you, but for once in more than three decades, I’m ready to finally fight them.  Rather than endlessly defending ourselves, our principles and our leaders against smears meant only to debase, dismiss, and disable, I think it’s time that we went on offense.

You and I are of a different character than the establishment. Most of us still hold to the notion that we should live virtuous lives, not in expectation of any reward from without, but for all the rewards provided within.  That’s quite different from the entirely mercenary view the establishment has of the world, where everything is for sale and anybody may be purchased so long as they maintain a steady stream of our money flowing.  The Tea Party grew out of a recognition by some among us of the situation with the establishment.  The party of  DC issues orders, while we comply, without reference to the costs to us, the pain to the nation, or the endlessly disastrous results that their orders have never failed to beget.  In considering all of this, however, we cannot become like them in part because it’s not in our nature, but also because we know that’s not who we wish to be.  For us to prevail, our form of offense must take on a different shape than that of the establishment.   We don’t share the moral ground they occupy, and frankly, we don’t want to slide into the gutter with them.

So what are we to do?  How do we oppose them? How do we even begin to combat their narrative?  It starts here, on the Internet. It starts with letters to the editor, on-line and snail-mail.  It begins with phone-calls to talk-shows.  At every opportunity to question the establishment, we must do so.  We must begin to take the battle to them.  We must show up at their town hall meetings. We must send them faxes.  We must do all of the things that will show them we are here for the battle, we’re of no mind to surrender or retreat, and we intend to advance, around, through and over the objections of the DC establishment on the way to victory.

It’s not as though we don’t know how to do this.  Some of you have been doing so all along.  You Tea Party patriots ought to know all about this, because in truth, from the moment Joe the Plumber asked Obama that question, and Obama  was exposed as an unrepentant socialist, you have known how to win.  Ryan Rhodes of Iowa Tea Party fame asked a simple question.  The DC establishment wilts in the light of truth, and we don’t need to join them in the sewer to expose what they’ve done, what they are doing now, or what they intend.  It only requires that we stand up, for our values, for our standards, and for our rights.  They will accost us with taunts and smears and lies, but we should ignore the worst filth, and respond on issues, policies, and reality.

Tell the truth. Confront any lie with the truth.  Ask questions that expose the truth by leaving the liar to pose another lie in response.  When somebody like Karl Rove says “Well, it’s getting late, but I still think there’s time for [some establishment candidate] to get into this race,” you should deluge the media outlet in question, and Rove, and anybody around him with “Didn’t you say it was too late for Sarah Palin if she didn’t get in on the 3rd of September?” It’s something we ought to recognize:  Questioning their own pronouncements exposes their nonsensical narratives and themes cause them intense pain, not because of guilt, since they feel no shame, but because of their exposure.

Another thing that tends to happen is that we give the lamestream media a pass.  We’re so accustomed to their unethical journalism that we mostly accept it in frustration and out of a sense of futility.  Why?  I’m a blogger.  Some of you are too.  Many of you are active in social media and in political fora, and in your workplaces and your families and in your congregations.  Some of you take your local papers or listen to local radio shows, but as frustrating as these outlets can be, what is a little frustration in the face of all that now confronts us?  Even as we happily read the Miami Herald story about the poll posted on Drudge and elsewhere Tuesday night, did you notice the opening slam on Palin built into the story:

WASHINGTON — Look out President Barack Obama. Even Sarah Palin’s gaining on you.

A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds…

I placed it in bold. What you see here is another example of bias.  “Even Sarah Palin?”  Even I  can see this is an example of biased journalism from Mr. Thomma, who wrote this article.  This is the sort of thing we’ve become accustomed to fighting all the time.  It’s now an assumption that even in positive news about Sarah Palin, there’s always going to be some way in which it is tilted against her, we who support her, or the Tea Party. Most of us are exhausted with having to defend against the more subtle smears, never mind the more obvious examples.  What we must do is challenge these outlets, not simply on the subject of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and such smears as they heap upon us, but in every story.  You will be hard-pressed to find an example of journalism that doesn’t involve some form of this kind of smear.  More, we need to challenge the baseline narrative of the media that suggests we’re a fringe, tiny minority.  They all know this isn’t true, but they like to pretend it is.  Let’s make some noise, and they won’t be quite so able to conceal the truth any longer.

Like you, I feel the frustrations of watching the establishment smear us, mock us, and otherwise defame us.  Make no mistake about it: Every one of their miserable attacks is designed to demoralize you.  They attack the things you cherish, the people you love, and the concepts of virtue by which you have lived your life.  As it turns out, as I finished this article, I looked and found this article by Nicole Coulter on Conservatives4Palin.  Much as I suspected, it seems I’m not alone in my thinking.  Let’s engage the battle as we know we must, in all the ways that  we can.  Everything about this is worth our efforts, and we shouldn’t wait when we already know what needs to be done.  The best part is that we don’t need to become purveyors of filth or senseless attacks because the facts are on our side.  Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to go on offense.

New Poll: Palin Within 5 Points of Obama

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

Hmmm... Palin Moves Up, Will Obama Move Out?

Credit to Ian Lazaran at Conservatives4Palin for digging up this story.

From the original article:

“After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.”

Notice what the Herald points out as the key reason.  That’s right, among the critical independents, the ones whose votes you’ve been told she’s “too conservative” to win, she’s now leading.  Let’s simply extrapolate the obvious.  This far out from a general election, and no Republican is polling better against Obama than Sarah Palin.

When you listen to the LameStream Media, remember this.  They’ve known this would be the case all along, which is why they continue their assault on her.  Be of good cheer, my friends, and keep up the hard work!

My Birthday Wish

Thursday, September 15th, 2011

The Promising Texas Sky

Tomorrow, the cake I won’t have should have had nearly fifty candles, but I’ll be happy if I get my birthday wish despite the absence of the smell of burning too much wax.  I’m not fussy, and each year, when my wife and daughter ask me what I’d like for my birthday, I generally say something like “nothing” or “another year,” because I don’t expect to be celebrated or rewarded for having survived another year.  This year may be a bit different.  I have the privilege of being born the 16th day of September.  For those of you who are unaware, Constitution Day is the 17th of September, but this is one of those rare years when the 17th falls on Saturday, causing us to mark the occasion officially on the Friday before, which is tomorrow, the 16th, and my birthday.

Many have already asked me what my birthday wish would be, if I were to make one, but I always remind people that according to the legend attending the idea of birthday wishes, to state it would be to negate it.  In truth, I’m not a superstitious fellow, so I suppose I can share with you a few thoughts on the matter.

The US Constitution is the most exquisite piece of legal artwork in the history of man.  It’s a document that outlines the foundation of a country the likes of which the world had never seen.  It is a precious thing, full of the best hopes and intentions of men who struggled long over the notion of what sort of relationship government ought have to the people it was constituted to serve.  What the US Constitution really codifies is a set of ideals for the governance of a free people who will find the least possible obstruction from the bonds of an aggressive state.  It is also precious because within its text lies the legal and political methodology that defines how it may be changed.  This is the feature to which early American historians pointed in describing the Constitution as a “living document.”  There are effectively two ways to change it , being the amendment and convention processes.  This sets our republic apart from all the ones that came before it, and most of those that have have been birthed since, because there in its own text lies the only legitimate method by which to change our fundamental laws.

Before our constitution, there were kings and tyrants and despots.  Even the earliest republics suffered from flaws, and the inability to modify them to suit the survival of their nations ultimately spelled their doom.  Ours was the most thoroughly studied and contemplated document of its kind, and it stands still, though frayed around the edges, as evidence of the good people can do when motivated by shared values and ideals, even where there are some differences among them.  It was not perfect, but over time, we have shored up its shortfalls, corrected its wrongs, and improved it in most ways.

One hundred or so years ago, we began the national process of self-destruction.  Increasingly, we ignored our Constitution and began to ruin its purpose and meaning.  It’s a matter of national shame that something so precious could be slowly wrecked and pillaged along with the freedoms it once represented, but such is our predicament now that government often rules without any respect or reference to it.

Of all the things I wish, not for a mere birthday, but for the sake of all I love, is to see the day when the US Constitution is restored to its proper place of supremacy, and that those who render interpretations of it are of a character to understand its original meaning and value.  This will be no small undertaking, and it will take leaders throughout government, at the federal, state and local levels to see this done.  They will need to have the support and prodding of an insistent people who will no longer settle for the proposition that freedom is obsolete, or independence is outdated.

At present, there is only one political party that fosters and nurtures such leaders, and it is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. Instead, it is an informal association of constitutionalists and patriots who we now call the Tea Party.  The Tea Party is an outgrowth of the mainstream of America, and not the right-wing radicals media has portrayed them to be.  They’re more centrist in the sense that they don’t care so much about parties, more independent in that they don’t feel undue loyalty to the parties, but strong in their belief that the Constitution provides the basis for a civil society in which all can strive in freedom for prosperity.

This group has no official leaders in the sense of traditional parties, and they tend to cleave to no elected officials in particular, willing to discard or adopt them as the politicians’ actions warrant.  You might think of it as a performance-based policy uncommon in an environment where the party faithful dominate the political landscape, no longer sure why they support a candidate, and no longer able to demonstrate their preferred politicians’ adherence to any principles.

As it turns out, this is also a fair portion of the Republicans’ conservative base.  That’s significant, because while not large enough on their own to rule the country, they are large enough to control or at least strongly influence one party.  If they are faithful to their ideals, they can do more to drive the agenda than any party in recent history because of their centrist, independent strain that respects first the constitution before party or politician.  It is here that their secret power lies, because these are the people who have constituted the “silent majority” who had remained mostly quiet as the two parties dominating the country ran the Constitution into the ground, and with it, its law, its economy, and its people.

While they don’t look to any one leader, and there is a wide diversity of opinion among them, they’ve noticed that the politician they support most, because she has always supported them, is one of their number.  She rose to her status by being a grass-roots, common-sense conservative.   This appeals to the Tea Party, and her willingness to state their case to a media that chases her while ignoring them is something that makes her precious too.  She has become their voice, in the main, whether she intended it or not, and it is true that they respond to her in full understanding that she is not perfect, but she is the most suitable to the mission they see ahead.  She’s done more to upset the apple-cart of out-of-control and corrupt government and its cronies than the combination of politicians in the remaining forty-nine states. In that sense, Sarah Palin has been the greatest advocate for the restoration of the US Constitution of any politician in more than a generation.  The Tea Party sees it, and knows it.  So do many conservatives in the Republican party.  So also do many unaffiliated Independents and not a few Democrats.  This makes her something much, much different.  She is the woman for her time.

Never before in our history have we seen such a confluence of events that threatens the very existence of our republic, and we now have a body politic largely composed of crooks and liars, some of them committed on principle to the destruction of the republic that had been founded, and still more committed unto death not to notice. When an American who understands how broken things really have become notices, and worse, speaks out, he or she is labeled a “terrorist.”  That is what our government has slowly become.  Sarah Palin threatens to overturn all of that.  The Tea Party is in the unique position to lead, and this may be their moment, perhaps their last chance for a generation if not longer.

There were two things on my list that I wanted desperately for my birthday.  One has arrived in the form of a merciful rain, soft and not fully satisfying the dread conditions we’ve faced here on the parched Texas prairie, but the promise to sustain us until more may arrive.  The danger of fire will not be gone, but it will reduce it some for a few days or a week if milder temperatures persist even a little.  Having gotten this birthday wish a day early, I at once feel greedy to state another, though in truth, the rains came a day early, freeing up my wish to a sole purpose.

I will not speak it here, or name it, out of a respect for the legend, but I think at long last you know it, and if it is granted on Constitution Day, I will revel in it and work tirelessly to fulfill its meaning and value.  Maybe I will get my birthday wish, and maybe I won’t, but if I do, there’s a pretty fair chance you will know it.

Why Timing Wins Races

Thursday, September 15th, 2011

She Knows Racing

Having been a fan of NASCAR for decades, I’ve noticed what some others may have realized about Sarah Palin, and the importance of timing in official entry into the race for the nomination.  Sarah Palin’s been in the race, whether anybody realized it or not, since November 5th, 2008. Her position as McCain’s running mate and the very positive influence she had on the race meant that the party’s base would look to her for leadership in that position unless she openly demurred.  After stepping aside from her office in July 2009, Governor Palin began to carry the burgeoning Tea Party’s banner.  The Tea Party was born as a reply to Obama’s over-reaching, and Palin’s relation to it merely accentuates the point: She’s exactly the right candidate for America, but to win, she’ll need to consider timing like a NASCAR veteran. It looks as though she has.

Have you ever watched a NASCAR race at a super-speedway like the tracks at Daytona or Talledega?  These races really come down to a good deal of tactical thinking in the last few laps.  First, you must survive the first 490 miles or more to be present for the finish.  Through much of the early portions of these races, you will notice generally fewer cautions as drivers are usually very patient.  They don’t wish to cause pile-ups early on, or worse, become involved in one, and at speeds exceeding 200 mph at times, it’s really not difficult to upset the carefully balanced racing machines.  It’s a test of driver, pit-crew, and machine, but more importantly, the mind.  These high-speed tracks are for strategic thinkers.  Early, you simply must stay out of harms way, conserving your equipment and fuel, while not permitting yourself to fall too far out of the running.  Drivers are generally conservative in the early and middle stages of the race if they hope to be around for the finish.

As the laps near the end of the race approach, drivers begin to make much more risky moves.  They’re less apt to wait patiently in line, and a specific tactical positioning becomes all-important.  If you’re not familiar with NASCAR, or the peculiarities of the super-speedways, generally considered to be the tracks of two miles or greater in some sort of oval configuration, you may not understand why it’s so very important that drivers ride along in line for most of the race.  In racing at the high speeds attained at these larger tracks, there is a phenomenon known as “drafting,” whereby two cars nose-to-tail can together go much faster than one car by itself.  This is because at those high speeds, one of the biggest limiting factors to going even faster is the resistance of drag from the air the car must punch through in order to go around the track. By lining up tightly, two cars still have the mass of two cars, and the power of two cars, but only the drag of 1-3/4s(approximate.)  This means that the two cars together can push to slightly higher speeds, perhaps 5-8% more, but in the vicinity of 200 mph, that’s not insubstantial.

If you watch one of these races, you’ll quickly realize that they become most exciting in the last ten or fewer laps. At that point, pairs of cars will split off in order to press for the lead, but a car left hung out without a drafting partner is in big trouble.  Worse, if two cars get a short distance out front, and get out of line too soon to battle for the lead, what often happens is that those who have remained behind are able to quickly catch up, because while two cars in line may have the drag of 1-3/4 cars, two battling side-by-side have the drag of nearly three cars because the air compressed between them can’t flow off of their front ends smoothly.  In this scenario, those staying in line in 3rd, 4th, and 5th place quickly catch up the front-runners and usually overtake them because they became too greedy, too soon.  Think of it as NASCAR’s version of “peaking early.”

The most thoroughly crafty drivers are those who put themselves in the position to be near the front at the end, in order to take advantage of another phenomenon called the “sling-shot.”  This consists of using the draft of a partner in front of you to actually gain more speed than the car in front.  If you’ve ever passed a large tractor-trailer on the highway at speed, you may have experienced something similar as you found your car being pulled toward the areas of low pressure immediately behind the truck or inside the wake it cuts through the air. This can accelerate you toward the truck, and in a similar way, a skilled driver can use the drafting partner in front of him to gain speed.  What the “sling-shot” requires is using this phenomenon in tandem with a wide sweeping break away from the stream, and frequently, a drafting partner or two will fall in behind. The key to carrying this out is timing.  If you do it too soon, you’ll have the same thing done to you.  If you wait too long, you won’t have the space to get it done, and because you’re not out front, it will be easier to get caught in another driver’s wreck.  Timed correctly, this maneuver yields the best chance for success, and in race after race, the people who led most of the way are eclipsed by this maneuver within seconds of the finish.  You might wonder why the driver in fourth would go along with the driver in third, and the driver in fifth would go with them.  The answer is that in choosing to do so, you increase your chance to finish higher, in this scenario finishing first, second, and third, rather than third, fourth, and fifth.

You may ask how this could apply to Sarah Palin.  Simply put, despite not being officially in the race, only Palin is in double digits other than the two alleged front-runners.  That’s right.  She’s sitting in third, and the front-runners have begun to battle side-by-side.  In two consecutive debates, Perry and Romney have been hammering one another, and it’s beginning to take its toll.  The two are beginning to induce a great deal of drag for their efforts, and the rest of the field will begin to catch up.  All that is now required is the momentum of a sling-shot maneuver, and only one person is really positioned to carry it out, but timing will be critical.

What does a NASCAR fan in Texas know about the competition that would apply to politics?  I can tell you without flinching that just as the race of 500 miles frequently comes down to the maneuvers executed within sight of the finish, so it is also true that a presidential primary can come down to those last weeks before state ballots begin to close to new entries.  As we turn and burn toward that date, the front-runners are now all the more conscious of their rear-view mirrors.  They can see the lady from the north bearing down on them with steely resolve, and she may well have drafting partners, but if she can gain enough momentum, and time it correctly, she won’t really need them. There’s still a lot of track ahead, but the front-runners know she’s back there, and much like her comments Monday night about Perry, she occasionally gives them a little bump to remind them she’s back there.  The closer to the end we get, the more tempting the side-by-side battle between the two leading egos will become, and then, when they will have thought themselves safely ahead, and beyond her reach, the crowd will start roaring “Run Sarah, Run” and the real race for the nomination will begin in earnest, as with a momentum her competitors hadn’t thought possible, she suddenly roars up to fill their mirrors.  She drops down to the inside in turn four with the field following her, and suddenly the two-car race has come down to three, but she has the momentum…

As they come to the line, the crowd thunders: “Game on!”

AttackWatch: Obama’s Opposition Research Snitch Site

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

Campaign of Intimidation

The site implores you “Get the facts. Fight the smears.”  This ominous application of intelligence gathering suggests Obama’s campaign will be creating a sort of Web-Enemies List.  The site promises to provide information with which to oppose any negative stories or narratives aimed at Obama.  One wonders if it will address the following narrative, being put in play by me:

“Barack Obama’s Campaign is involved in desperate information-gathering on its enemies in the blogosphere and on social networking sites, while pushing its own Marxist propaganda.” – MarkAmerica

Go ahead AttackWatch! Refute it!  Oh, wait…

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what must be the ultimate result of three years of failure: The President is reduced to gathering information on his critics, doubtless for the sake of the inevitable personal attacks they intend to conduct.  You want big government run wild?  Obama is set to deliver it, and this part of his campaign is an attempt to extend the Obama take-over of the economy onto the Internet.

This entire venture is intended to frighten and intimidate.  If you want to know what the Obama talking points will be, check out their “Attack Files” page.  It’s a mini-compendium of easily refuted responses to criticisms Barack Obama is sure to  face whomever his eventual general election opponent may be.

Go check the site and make yourself familiar with the talking points. Over the coming weeks and months, they will be refuted.  In the mean time, rather than feeling intimidated by Obama’s little website, you should laugh.  This is how desperate Obama and his drones have become.  At present, they’re just trying to stave off a primary challenge.  The grumbling deep within the bowels of the Democrat Party indicate he’s in serious trouble, and Tuesday night’s loss in NY District 9 demonstrate the serious trouble he and his party now face for 2012.

This crew is certifiable.

Rick Perry’s Immigration Surrender

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

More Insincerity?

Let me start by saying that I know a little about immigration.  My wife is an immigrant, and even married to a soldier, the hoops through which we were forced to leap and the fees we paid seemed outlandish as we prepared to move to Texas from Germany.  It was simply another brief hardship we happily faced together in our young marriage.  After I left the Army, we concluded that Texas would make a great home, and it was here in Texas where we came face-to-face with our national crisis in illegal immigration.  In the time we’ve lived here, what we have learned is that both parties tend to ignore the problem and downplay enforcement.   On the Democrat side, there is a tendency to see illegals as more votes, since Democrats aren’t picky if even the dead vote, so non-citizens voting isn’t really a problem in their view.  Some Republicans turn a blind eye for another reason, and it’s simply this:  Illegals are frequently paid in cash, under-the-table, and for jobs in agriculture and construction, they thereby hold down the cost of labor.  This increases profits on any job, and it’s on this basis that many otherwise law-and-order conservatives refuse to rock the boat or challenge the status quo.

This has been true with Democrats and Republicans in the White House, and in charge of Congress.  It’s been true whether Texas had a Republican or Democrat governor and legislature.  Nothing seems to make much difference, and many Texans in either party are in a hurry to sweep the issue under the carpet.  As Texas has grown and its illegal immigrant population has ballooned, is it also true that our economy here has continued along better than most, in part due to our competitive advantage with other states.  Part of that competitive advantage owes to illegal immigrants.  Rick Perry enjoys pointing out how many jobs have been created during his tenure as governor, but the truth is that many of them are low-skilled, low-wage jobs, and many of those are filled by illegals with stolen social security numbers.  Everything has a cost in the real world, and while you may gain an advantage one area, somewhere, somehow, the cost are being borne by somebody.

Let me state plainly that I don’t blame anybody born elsewhere who concludes that their best bet for prosperity lies here in the United States, particularly when measured against the conditions of their home countries.  I understand, because I’ve been abroad to places where I wouldn’t have wanted to raise my child, or build much of anything, because freedom is so sparse and opportunity is so rare.   Let none misunderstand what I’m saying to be some sort of anti-immigrant bias.  Often, I think immigrants more readily appreciate the opportunities this country represents more thoroughly than some fair number who were lucky to have been born here.  It was certainly true of my mother’s grandparents.  For them, America was the greatest opportunity they had dared ever to imagine, and they set out to make the most of it.

With this in mind, let me state it quite bluntly:  You cannot build a nation that provides such freedom and opportunity without defending the rule of law on which these precious commodities had been based.  This means that we must require people to enter legally, and to obtain legal documentation to work.  Who can claim that it’s too much to ask?  If a nation is defined by geographical boundaries, and a common base of governance and law, who can argue that it may be maintained by ignoring its laws or its geographical boundaries?

My first personal experience with illegal immigration consisted of rescuing a young Mexican fellow who had been treed by a neighbor’s young bull.  Clinging to the trunk of an old Live Oak, standing on a stout limb some ten feet from the ground, he was in this predicament because he had wandered into our secluded property, and when he saw our dogs, he flung himself over the barbed-wire fence that separated our property from our neighbor’s pasture.  Landing in that pasture, the young bull came to investigate the barking dogs, and upon spying the young man, gave chase, with the poor fellow seeking refuge in the tree.  I managed to move the bull away, long enough to get the terrified young man down, which was difficult because he understood almost no English.  Once down, I led him to the gate and tried to discover what he had been doing there.

Another neighbor, having spied the goings-on, had called our local constable who was a fluent Spanish-speaker.  The constable arrived, and asked him a question, and all I could make out was that he’d asked for a green card.  The young man lowered his head, and shook it signaling “no,” and the constable loaded him in his car, and thanked me for rescuing the young man from his predicament before departing.  He explained that the young man was working his way north, looking for work, staying off the highway where he might be picked up by law enforcement.  I couldn’t help but feel bad for him.  He looked to be no older than 18 or 19, and he surely had experienced hard times well before he walked into my yard and then leaped from the frying pan into the fire.  My dogs might have scared him, but the young bull would have hurt him.  All this, he risked for work.  Being in Central Texas, if he had walked any part of the distance from Mexico, he’d been on foot a long while.  The term “economic refugee” played in my mind, and I knew what it must mean to people who come here from Mexico and elsewhere.

The next experience we had with illegal immigrants came when we had an occasion to go to the emergency room.  An incident with a bucking horse resulted in a trip to the ER, where Mrs. America was diagnosed with a broken hand.  While we were in the waiting area, a broken hand being relatively lower priority, we encountered a number of illegal immigrants who were there for everything from early labor to children with fever, to more serious conditions.  In short, the place was swamped with them.  You might wonder how I could know their status, but it’s really as simple as this: The lady who was checking us in and verifying financial responsibility took my wife’s insurance card, and said “Praise the Lord! A paying customer!”  Naive as I was in those days, I asked her what she meant, and as she shoved forms in front of me to complete, she explained that most of the people in the crowded waiting area were people who would never pay.  I commented on the fact that it seemed terribly busy for a Tuesday evening, and she remarked that this was turning out to be a slow day.  I asked her bluntly: “If they’re not paying, who does?”  She laughed at me and said: “Dear boy, that’s Medicaid. Most of them are illegals, and we’ll wind up filing for payments from the State. It’s called Indigent Care.”

As I returned to where my wife was seated, cradling her hand, I pondered what all of this must cost us each year.  As I looked around the room at the scale of the problem, I became dizzy with the implications.  My education had only just begun.  Next came the schools.  This is where I learned that in my daughter’s classroom would be children who were receiving an education for which we all pay, but whose parents don’t pay any taxes beyond those unavoidable ones on sales.  Slowly but surely, this all began to add up to something, and then one day, years later, I saw two people walking across my back horse pasture.  I wondered what they might be doing, when one of them inadvertently made contact with one of the electrical strands.  There was an eruption of cursing in Spanish, and I walked out to see who they were and what they were doing.  Like the young fellow of more than a decade before, these two didn’t speak much English.  They seemed harmless enough, but they asked me if I had any work.  “Work” was approximately the extent of their English.  I told them I hadn’t, but I could see they had been walking many miles.

What I realized as they left my property and onto the next was that they probably would avoid detection, and so large is the problem that even a law-and-order conservative like me had no particular concern about it, and had shrugged at the futility of it all, simply returning to the task at hand.  I too had become thoroughly desensitized to it.  Of course, if you live for any time in Texas, particularly in rural areas, you become accustomed to all this as an ordinary part of life, and therein lies a serious problem:  We’ve become accustomed to law-breaking on a wide scale, and no politician here or in Washington seems the least bit interested in addressing it.  Their answer seems to be to simply legalize the former illegality.

Rick Perry is just one more in a long parade of politicians who have done little – virtually nothing really – to discourage all of this, and the problem is that so long as we shut up and pay, that’s how it’s going to be.  Don’t misunderstand: I don’t blame only Rick Perry, not by a long-shot, but the truth is that every time somebody in our legislature has raised a ruckus and offered a bill on the subject, Perry has been there to shoot it down.  More, he’s been happy to sign things into law that effectively act as encouragement, and I can’t endorse any part of that, including the bill that gave in-state tuition rates to the children of illegals.  I realize that politicians also feel stuck between a rock and a hard place on this issue, but after all, for whom do they work?  The answer to this question may contain the key to a larger  universe of issues in which our government is intransigent in the face of our demands.  In too many cases, the answer may well be that they’re not working for us, but for other interests upon whom they rely in order to maintain their power, and as a result, we pay, often in more ways than one.

What Limbaugh Missed About Perry and Gardasil

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

Hurting His Accuracy Rating?

It’s not often that Rush Limbaugh fails to recognize the salient point in a political story, but in the first hour of Tuesday’s broadcast, he missed it completely.  I hate to take Rush to task, because his errors are vastly outnumbered by the times he’s ahead of the media curve, but in his defense of Rick Perry on the Gardasil flap, I believe Rush got it wrong. It may well come down to a lack of perspective.  As a Texan parent of a minor daughter when the Gardasil issue surfaced, I can tell you that from my perspective, the issue can be understood in a different light.  This wasn’t his only error about Rick Perry, but my focus is on this one for a critical reason:  While Perry has admitted his order on the HPV vaccine may have been a mistake in the way it was implemented, he hasn’t retracted the underlying problem:  A real conservative untainted by crony capitalism would never have implemented this at all.   Rush tells us this is a distraction from the fiscal issues.  I submit to you that Perry’s Gardasil mandate is a fiscal issue, and a matter of his core conservatism.  Rather than a distraction, it cuts to the heart of what remains broken in our politics, and why we must hold candidates’ feet to the fire.

First, let’s consider this from the point of view of a conservative parent.  What Michele Bachmann was implying about “innocent daughters” is very much the point.  It isn’t a matter of criminal guilt or innocence, as the bizarre Mark Davis seemed to suggest today, but the matter of a different sort of innocence most conservative parents would like to see preserved in our daughters until adulthood and marriage.  What Bachmann was clumsily trying to imply while stating it in gentler terms is that the innocence of these girls was very much on the line.  When I heard the announcement of Rick Perry’s intended policy, I went ballistic, and began placing calls to every Texas politician who I could contact.  There were many busy phone lines, so I left voice-mails or called back as need be, but the other parents I spoke with were incensed because the implication of Perry’s policy was that our 6th-grade(or older) daughters must be promiscuous, or at least have inattentive parents.  After all, HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. For our daughters to be “at risk,” they would first need to be sexually active.  The implication of this policy caused many Texas parents to express outrage on this basis alone.

Perry ought to have known better, so why didn’t he?  Michele Bachmann may have offered the answer in the discussion during Monday’s debate: Crony-capitalism.  While Perry scoffed at the notion that he’s for sale for a mere five-thousand dollars, it’s important to recognize that there was much more at stake than the direct contributions from Merck to Perry, and that’s all the small amount addresses.  It doesn’t do anything about the insider-trading and all the other potential instances of corruption that grow from one of these crony-capitalist adventures.  In talking about Perry’s response, Rush missed this.  I wish he’d apply the same investigative standard to Perry that he once applied to another southern governor. In 1992, Rush spared no digging in finding the connections and the back-channels through which the Clinton machine operated its crony-capitalism operation.  Rick Perry, and indeed every candidate for President, needs this sort of thorough examination.

Rush maintained that all of this is really just a distraction intended to throw the Republican party off-track from discussions of fiscal issues and Obamacare.  I thoroughly disagree, because crony capitalism is a problem that affects fiscal issues, and is an entrenched part of the Obamacare debate.  For instance, explain Obama’s situation with respect to crony capitalism in the “Green Jobs” scam.  Is this not a fiscal problem, with billions of dollars of tax-payer money being diverted to these dubious boondoggles?  If this isn’t a fiscal problem, what is it?  When dollars are diverted to some program or initiative, these are tax-payer dollars.  Yes, it’s a cultural issue, but the simple fact is that fiscal issues encompass virtually everything, so that there is very little distinction between budgetary and  moral issues.

At the same time, to pretend that the Gardasil issue is a distraction from Obamacare is another canard.  Gardasil is one small instance of what Obamacare will ultimately be, though the reach of the latter spans the macroeconomic landscape.  Rush has pointed out repeatedly how the pharmaceutical companies have been a part of formulating Obamacare to their advantage, and if that’s wrong(and it clearly is,) then it must also be wrong for Perry to use Gardasil for similar purposes at the state level.   Perhaps more importantly, what the Gardasil decision by Perry demonstrates is a reflex to statist answers to problems.  Such a tendency always results in fiscal blow-back, as can be witnessed in some of the programs concocted under the last Texas republican to have become President.

Rush is a great commentator, and I don’t criticize him often because I’ve derived so much enjoyment from his show over the years, but every once in a long while, Limbaugh clearly blows it, and his failure to understand how bad Perry’s Gardasil order really had been is one of those rare occasions.  Eventually, Rush will discover his error, and he’ll likely re-think it when he considers other perspectives.  I understand.  I really do.  Rush desperately wants the Republicans to win back the White House and reverse Obamacare, but it won’t be done unless we’re willing to examine our own candidates under the same microscope.  You can bet the media will begin doing so from the moment we choose a nominee.  Let us do this difficult, sometimes disappointing work ourselves.  Republicans deserve the best candidate to be found within their ranks .  We won’t find the best by sweeping our own candidates’ flaws under the rug on the dubious pretense of political distractions.  Neither should Rush.