Knowing the great degree of influence my posts have on my faithful readers, I want to take this opportunity to alert you to an upcoming post discussion about the merits of some potential 2012 GOP Presidential contenders. Actually I plan to go so far as to lay out my endorsement for the 2012 Republican nominee for President. I made the decision to donate money to his campaign just this weekend, and bumper stickers are ordered. I therefore know you'll all want to "keep your powder dry" until I have time to publish my post in the next couple of days.
It's possible that my reasoning will surprise you, though I'm confident you'll give due consideration to my points and to the man I plan to endorse.
Presidential primary time is fun for political junkies like me. So, people, study your candidates and their positions and be prepared to join me later in the week for my 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination field analysis.
Blessings, and I'll be back soon.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Warrior Obama, Master of Sonorous Small Words and Smaller Deeds
Do we really find ourselves flying military sorties over Libya, in the absence of any congressional vote to approve such an action? Do we find ourselves flying these sorties with no properly constituted lines of authority? And do we find our great military sent to, among other worthy goals, "stop the killing"?
Why at every turn am I flashing back to memories of Michael Dukakis riding in a tank with a goofy helmet, or of other memories of President Carter being attacked by a crazed rabbit near his ancestral home in Georgia? I even recall in an unusual fit of honesty The Rev. Dr. Jesse Jackson commenting, during BHO's procession to his November 2008 coronation, on the Peace Prize recipient's apparent lack of two spherical anatomical organs generally thought to be critical for purposes of intimacy and procreation. The reason for these flashback memories? Simply put, the emperor has no clothes, and more and more Democrats are joining Republicans and conservatives in coming to this realization, which is why I expect polls to reflect a fairly sour American public, bipartisanly so, in the coming months.
The liberals' quarter-war policy is clear, once you understand certain touchstones for Democrat liberal policy makers. George W. Bush was and remains the focus of evil in the modern world, so no strategy out of the Peace Prize recipient's administration can even remotely resemble a Bush coalition. Moreover, a multitude of partners is critical, and deferring operational command to one of these lesser powers is desirable. Bonus points are awarded for prolonged dickering about the chain of command. Next, the policy must hamstring its own forces by denying them their most lethal weapons and by putting forth rules of engagement that are complex and difficult to understand. These ROEs will ensure no decision is made without opportunity for second and third guessing, with plenty of input by Department of Justice lawyers. Further, a freewheeling loud public debate ought to take place regarding where any captured "suspects" may be held pending their civil trials. It goes without saying that full access to lawyers and the press will be enjoyed by the detainee "suspects."
Unfortunately for the Ivy League frat boys running this show, and more unfortunately for the people of America, and most unfortunately for those brave men and women who may be called upon to give the ultimate sacrifice as they serve as the tip of our spear, this quarter-war that the Peace Prize recipient has gotten us into will not end well for America. This is so for innumerable reasons, but the first and foremost is that no one has yet to define our mission. Why are we there? What does victory look like? Are the rebels really our friends? Can we identify our friends in the region? I'm skeptical about that last question in particular.
For now, regular Americans are just lying low, watching in disbelief as the inmates run the asylum and hoping there'll be something left to salvage after the 2012 presidential elections. We've got to get this train that is America turned around, my friends. The future of our children and grandchildren depends on it.
Look for a post in the next week or so about Israel. The issues facing that small nation so favored by God are of great interest to me, and what's more amazing is that Holy Scripture can guide us as we seek to learn about these issues confronting The Holy Land today.
Why at every turn am I flashing back to memories of Michael Dukakis riding in a tank with a goofy helmet, or of other memories of President Carter being attacked by a crazed rabbit near his ancestral home in Georgia? I even recall in an unusual fit of honesty The Rev. Dr. Jesse Jackson commenting, during BHO's procession to his November 2008 coronation, on the Peace Prize recipient's apparent lack of two spherical anatomical organs generally thought to be critical for purposes of intimacy and procreation. The reason for these flashback memories? Simply put, the emperor has no clothes, and more and more Democrats are joining Republicans and conservatives in coming to this realization, which is why I expect polls to reflect a fairly sour American public, bipartisanly so, in the coming months.
The liberals' quarter-war policy is clear, once you understand certain touchstones for Democrat liberal policy makers. George W. Bush was and remains the focus of evil in the modern world, so no strategy out of the Peace Prize recipient's administration can even remotely resemble a Bush coalition. Moreover, a multitude of partners is critical, and deferring operational command to one of these lesser powers is desirable. Bonus points are awarded for prolonged dickering about the chain of command. Next, the policy must hamstring its own forces by denying them their most lethal weapons and by putting forth rules of engagement that are complex and difficult to understand. These ROEs will ensure no decision is made without opportunity for second and third guessing, with plenty of input by Department of Justice lawyers. Further, a freewheeling loud public debate ought to take place regarding where any captured "suspects" may be held pending their civil trials. It goes without saying that full access to lawyers and the press will be enjoyed by the detainee "suspects."
Unfortunately for the Ivy League frat boys running this show, and more unfortunately for the people of America, and most unfortunately for those brave men and women who may be called upon to give the ultimate sacrifice as they serve as the tip of our spear, this quarter-war that the Peace Prize recipient has gotten us into will not end well for America. This is so for innumerable reasons, but the first and foremost is that no one has yet to define our mission. Why are we there? What does victory look like? Are the rebels really our friends? Can we identify our friends in the region? I'm skeptical about that last question in particular.
For now, regular Americans are just lying low, watching in disbelief as the inmates run the asylum and hoping there'll be something left to salvage after the 2012 presidential elections. We've got to get this train that is America turned around, my friends. The future of our children and grandchildren depends on it.
Look for a post in the next week or so about Israel. The issues facing that small nation so favored by God are of great interest to me, and what's more amazing is that Holy Scripture can guide us as we seek to learn about these issues confronting The Holy Land today.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Let's "Opt Out" To Victory
The travesty of ObamaCare has so discouraged me that I can't often post about it. I'm proud of the House Republicans and wholeheartedly support their legislative efforts to kill the law with death by a thousand cuts. At the end of the day, however, most of us believe it will take a new President to repeal this Orwellian monstrosity by ripping out its roots and casting it into the lake of fire, so that efforts at meaningful reform that empowers patients and their doctors can take shape.
It was in this context that I've been reflecting on how a catchy turn of phrase can make a profound impact on an idea's success in the marketplace of ideas. Examples abound, such as "affirmative action" instead of "race-based preferences," or "investment in our children," instead of "pouring good money after bad down a rat hole of overpaid, incompetent, unmotivated teachers." "Reform" is another useful noun that can mean anything, as in "tax reform" that lowers marginal rates and eliminates the double taxation of the death tax, versus "tax reform" that raises marginal rates, punishes entrepreneurs and investors, and generally incentivizes people to hide money under their mattress. The same word, but two completely opposing meanings.
I suggest we who oppose ObamaCare down here in the trenches begin to call for allowing individual states to "opt out" of ObamaCare. The term "opt out" is catchy and conveys clearly our goal, but with a positive connotation that suggests "freedom" and "choice" to citizens. It lends itself to a number of slogans, such as "Just opt out!" or "Opt Out Now," and it can even be used as a stand alone motto.
The value of a catchy phrase, composed of two or three three letter words, that clearly communicates our values and goals cannot be overestimated. Opting out is consistent with America's historic federalist principles, and ought to appeal to moderates and fence-sitters and others who might oppose outright federal appeal.
I envision a coordinated grass roots effort among roughly the same red and purple states which are participating in legal challenges to ObamaCare, which is more than half of the Union. Existing conservative infrastructure would promote the idea publicly and pressure the individual states to pass "opt out" laws. In turn this would generate further federal pressure against ObamaCare, and in fact the Opt Out movement might be viewed by President Obama as a face-saving compromise as he positions himself for his 2012 re-election race. I dare even hope that federal legislation allowing for an Opt Out option might be perceived as reasonable enough to pass the Senate and avoid an Obama veto.
Granted, Opt Out does not by itself nullify all the damage done by ObamaCare, but it is an achievable goal in 2011 or 2012, and as policy would boost a number of favorable precedents, not least the broadening of the concept of federalism and state sovereignty. Granted as well, Opt Out requires action at both federal level and in each state, but in accomplishing each legislative victory another nail is driven into the heart of the concept of centralized health care rationing. No one said this would be easy, but with hard work I'm convinced we can achieve victory.
By all means let's press on toward the goal of repeal, but let's open another battle front against the forces of statism and stagnation with a new grassroots movement to Opt Out! Far from diluting our efforts, Opt Out will strengthen our cause by adding new volunteers, persuading more voters, and encouraging those of us in the trenches with achievable victories in the short-term. Conservative leaders, tea party activists, Republican officials, are you listening? We the people are crying out for leadership on this issue.
It was in this context that I've been reflecting on how a catchy turn of phrase can make a profound impact on an idea's success in the marketplace of ideas. Examples abound, such as "affirmative action" instead of "race-based preferences," or "investment in our children," instead of "pouring good money after bad down a rat hole of overpaid, incompetent, unmotivated teachers." "Reform" is another useful noun that can mean anything, as in "tax reform" that lowers marginal rates and eliminates the double taxation of the death tax, versus "tax reform" that raises marginal rates, punishes entrepreneurs and investors, and generally incentivizes people to hide money under their mattress. The same word, but two completely opposing meanings.
I suggest we who oppose ObamaCare down here in the trenches begin to call for allowing individual states to "opt out" of ObamaCare. The term "opt out" is catchy and conveys clearly our goal, but with a positive connotation that suggests "freedom" and "choice" to citizens. It lends itself to a number of slogans, such as "Just opt out!" or "Opt Out Now," and it can even be used as a stand alone motto.
The value of a catchy phrase, composed of two or three three letter words, that clearly communicates our values and goals cannot be overestimated. Opting out is consistent with America's historic federalist principles, and ought to appeal to moderates and fence-sitters and others who might oppose outright federal appeal.
I envision a coordinated grass roots effort among roughly the same red and purple states which are participating in legal challenges to ObamaCare, which is more than half of the Union. Existing conservative infrastructure would promote the idea publicly and pressure the individual states to pass "opt out" laws. In turn this would generate further federal pressure against ObamaCare, and in fact the Opt Out movement might be viewed by President Obama as a face-saving compromise as he positions himself for his 2012 re-election race. I dare even hope that federal legislation allowing for an Opt Out option might be perceived as reasonable enough to pass the Senate and avoid an Obama veto.
Granted, Opt Out does not by itself nullify all the damage done by ObamaCare, but it is an achievable goal in 2011 or 2012, and as policy would boost a number of favorable precedents, not least the broadening of the concept of federalism and state sovereignty. Granted as well, Opt Out requires action at both federal level and in each state, but in accomplishing each legislative victory another nail is driven into the heart of the concept of centralized health care rationing. No one said this would be easy, but with hard work I'm convinced we can achieve victory.
By all means let's press on toward the goal of repeal, but let's open another battle front against the forces of statism and stagnation with a new grassroots movement to Opt Out! Far from diluting our efforts, Opt Out will strengthen our cause by adding new volunteers, persuading more voters, and encouraging those of us in the trenches with achievable victories in the short-term. Conservative leaders, tea party activists, Republican officials, are you listening? We the people are crying out for leadership on this issue.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Not This Time . . .
I've just read the news of the terrible tragedy in Arizona today. Congresswoman Giffords was wounded, and a federal judge killed, by a lone shooter who is now in custody. The congresswoman is now the second House member to be shot in the line of duty in my lifetime, as far as I know, the other being Congressman Leo Ryan who was killed by members of the Jim Jones cult in Guyana in 1978. What a tragedy! I'm reminded of the sacrifices so many of our nation's founders faced so that Americans have the freedom to govern ourselves, and at the same time how fragile and unique and precious are the values and liberties Americans share. That this event shocks us is a sign of the inherent moral fiber that makes America a great nation.
Americans should not and will not allow events like this to deter us from involvement in politics and self-government. I already see in news reports the linkage between the shooting and Congresswoman Giffords' support of Obamacare, and I'm reminded how President Clinton and the Democrats used another tragedy in 1995 to demonize conservatives and to try to deter and discourage us from taking part in partisan politics. At the time, just after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, President Clinton linked the Oklahoma City federal building bombing to Rush Limbaugh and the "haters" encouraged by talk radio. Republicans and conservative activists, shocked by the bombing and on the defensive from Clinton's attacks, allowed themselves to be painted as sympathizers and encouragers of terrorists, and the righteous activism faded away. I fully expect a similar effort in the coming days from some quarters of the Democratic partisan attack machine.
Well, it won't work. Not this time. No one knows details yet, but only the shooter (and anyone who might have assisted him) is responsible for this crime. Americans cannot allow terrorism to bar us from doing those things that make us Americans, and that includes standing up for those values and ideas we believe in as part of the political process.
Let me emphasize again that no one who participates in American political give and take need feel guilt about the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the other victims today in Arizona. We should feel shock, sadness, and anger, and empathy for her and for her family and the other victims, but also resolve and fortitude to not let this tragedy be used by those who would advance their own agendas with the blood from their wounds and the tears of their families and the mourning of a nation.
For every left-wing partisan who tars conservatives with the taint of the Giffords shooter, I would counter with this: Democrats passed Obamacare in the face of massive public resistance, with almost no Republican votes, taking advantage of every parliamentary trick in the book, essentially making a mockery of the will of the people. This is in contrast to every other example of major social legislation in the last hundred years which were all passed on a bipartisan basis. Was it foreseeable that someone who was already mentally unbalanced might take their frustrations too far? I would say, yes, and I would say so no matter what motive is ultimately shown in the case of the Giffords shooter.
No, the blame belongs to the shooter and the shooter alone (and any possible conspirators), but if the Democrats want to use this horrendous event for their political advantage, they stand on very shaky ground. I don't believe the American public will let them, not this time. Let us today pray for Congresswoman Giffords and her family and the rest of the victims, mourn those who lost their lives, and resolve to honor them with our involvement in the political process and our refusal to let anyone trade on their sacrifice.
Americans should not and will not allow events like this to deter us from involvement in politics and self-government. I already see in news reports the linkage between the shooting and Congresswoman Giffords' support of Obamacare, and I'm reminded how President Clinton and the Democrats used another tragedy in 1995 to demonize conservatives and to try to deter and discourage us from taking part in partisan politics. At the time, just after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, President Clinton linked the Oklahoma City federal building bombing to Rush Limbaugh and the "haters" encouraged by talk radio. Republicans and conservative activists, shocked by the bombing and on the defensive from Clinton's attacks, allowed themselves to be painted as sympathizers and encouragers of terrorists, and the righteous activism faded away. I fully expect a similar effort in the coming days from some quarters of the Democratic partisan attack machine.
Well, it won't work. Not this time. No one knows details yet, but only the shooter (and anyone who might have assisted him) is responsible for this crime. Americans cannot allow terrorism to bar us from doing those things that make us Americans, and that includes standing up for those values and ideas we believe in as part of the political process.
Let me emphasize again that no one who participates in American political give and take need feel guilt about the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the other victims today in Arizona. We should feel shock, sadness, and anger, and empathy for her and for her family and the other victims, but also resolve and fortitude to not let this tragedy be used by those who would advance their own agendas with the blood from their wounds and the tears of their families and the mourning of a nation.
For every left-wing partisan who tars conservatives with the taint of the Giffords shooter, I would counter with this: Democrats passed Obamacare in the face of massive public resistance, with almost no Republican votes, taking advantage of every parliamentary trick in the book, essentially making a mockery of the will of the people. This is in contrast to every other example of major social legislation in the last hundred years which were all passed on a bipartisan basis. Was it foreseeable that someone who was already mentally unbalanced might take their frustrations too far? I would say, yes, and I would say so no matter what motive is ultimately shown in the case of the Giffords shooter.
No, the blame belongs to the shooter and the shooter alone (and any possible conspirators), but if the Democrats want to use this horrendous event for their political advantage, they stand on very shaky ground. I don't believe the American public will let them, not this time. Let us today pray for Congresswoman Giffords and her family and the rest of the victims, mourn those who lost their lives, and resolve to honor them with our involvement in the political process and our refusal to let anyone trade on their sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
