Old Guard Grip on GOP Appears Ready to Wan

Three days ago I witnessed a somewhat eye opening interview on CSPAN. The guest was Peter Wehner, a senior member of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His smarmy, overly self confident demeanor was reminiscent of former House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor.

Wehner is a somebody within GOP ranks. He was a senior adviser to the Romney-Ryan campaign. He has written for numerous publications including the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine and the Weekly Standard. In 2013 he was named as one of a handful of reform minded conservatives by the Washington Monthly.

Mr. Wehner also served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations prior to becoming a speechwriter for George W. Bush. Books that he has authored or co-authored include City and Man, Religion and Politics in a new Era, and Wealth and Justice: The Morally of Democratic Capitalism.

When the subject turned to the 2016 Republican Presidential field, Mr. Wehner proffered his take: It amounted to Jeb Bush would be an outstanding nominee, but Govenor Romney remained a viable option.

Wehner then went down the list of Republican candidates, from Ted Cruz to Scott Walker to Dr. Ben Carson. Chris Christie, he professed, has "excellent credentials," but "needed to work on his foreign policy positions." Surprisingly, twelve names deep in his analysis, I realized that Governor Rick Perry's name was not one of them..

"Why" would someone so learned, so apparently prevalent within the GOP inner circle, negate to mention Perry? An attempt to stonewall? Strange...Almost, as if, Perry is a member of a different party...

Closer examination to Wehner's writings and insights reveal a paradigm consisent with Bill Kristol. In essence, "pure Neo-Con." It is here where the battle for the soul of the Republican party begins!

Most conservatives haven't put it together. Yet! But, as 2015 unfolds, expect some very predictable developments. It begins with Governor Bush's expected candidacy.

Jeb Bush is slightly to the right of Mitt Romney. Especially on social issues. More significantly is his appeal to Hispanic voters. The quickest way for Republicans to hand the White House to Democrats is to tally 27% of Latino votes; as Governor Romney did in 2012. Bush scored 56% in the 2002 Florida Gubernatorial general election.

Sadly, there are some Romney supporters, who would break for Hillary Clinton, if the choice were between she and Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or even Rick Perry. Not to say that Wehner is among them! Yet, there exist a pocket of mostly Northeasterners, who continue to see the base as: "simple, rough-around-the-edges, naive, Jesus fearing, folks."

Scholars such as Wehner are confident that Jeb can be sold to them. After all, Jeb holds Yankee roots! Even though he was born in Texas, graduated from a Texas University, is a full fledged Floridian and even has a Mexican wife, the pedigree is there.

Not to say that Perry wouldn't be preferable to the "wrong kind" of Democrat! Wehner has written several articles describing the "dangers" of an Elizabeth Warren Presidency. He has emphasized the importance for Clinton Democrats not to take Ms. Warren lightly. Her message is "powerful Populism" and could gain traction with disgruntled Demcrats in lightening fashion!

Where Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie and most of the others find the most common ground is their comfort with big government. Once we get past media sizzle, sound bites and one liners, one question will define the GOP: "Are we with Neo-Cons, and Democrats in their preference for "top down from Washington?" Or, are we seeking a new direction?"

Governor Perry obviously is. That's why he is feared by the Peter Wahner's, George Will's and Bill Kristols! A message of "reducing the size, scope and cost" of central government takes the air out of a lot of tires! The assertion "red team versus blue team, playing for the same university," is now contrasted by a real alternative.

Neo-Con's know that Jeb Bush would be a stronger candidate than either Mitt Romney or Chris Christie. His only real negative, aside being out of politics for while, is his name. Nobody truly knows how much of an impact the moniker "Bush" will have until the primaries begin!

Smart money predicts that Romney, Christie and even Senator Marco Rubio will stay out if Jeb enters the race; for different reasons. It would also be a good bet to assume that neither Scott Walker or John Kasich will enter. The latter is already being seen as a possible running mate for Bush.

It makes for a tidy conclusion, in the name of party unity. But there are concerns. Starting with "what if" Ted Cruz succumbs to expected Texas pressure, (coming from both Bush and Perry camps)and stays out? Then there is Rand Paul's dilemma in Kentucky. All the Senate muscle, starting with Mitch McConnell, will urge him to run for re-election. Under Kentucky law, he can't run for both offices.

There are other candidates to be sure. But, it's easy to see how a "forty-man race" could become a "two-man race;" in a remarkably short time. Bush insiders see this scenario playing out. So do the Peter Wehner's of the Republican world.

Ironically, Wehner and friends would be scrambling madly for Perry buttons if Elizabeth Warren managed to grab the nomination. America may be ready for such a choice! There is a weariness with our present status quot. New, outside the beltway, faces are coveted more than perhaps anytime in American history.

Don't think Democrats wouldn't welcome a Perry-Warren match-up! Not solely because they think of the Texas Governor as an easier opponent! There may actualy be millions of Dems ready to chance the wind with Perry and his Jeffersonian ideas. Even in the most elite circles of New England Liberalism, there is concern that the "Professor" may be a bit too much "in the clouds."

Much of "blue collar" America has lost faith in all things political. A plain spoken, "Will Rogers type," might be just what the doctor ordered!

In short, the general election will likely be won before the primaries are concluded. Clearing the first obsticle, namely sending those traditionally in charge to the "back of the room" is our beginning.

Is Jeb "the Man?" Or is There an Alternative?

Several months ago, we asked on this blog, "is Jeb the man?" The answer was a resounding "no!"

Amid numerous predictions of his passing on a 2016 Presidential run, it now looks as if Jeb Bush will take the plunge. This will come as a great relief to establishment backers. It should also clear the field early, making it possible for a clear alternative to emerge.

Nothing is definite. But, smart money would suggest that if Mitt Romney ever entertained ideas about the Presidency, they would disappear 100% with Jeb's announcement. You can probably say 90% for Chris Christie and 80% for both Marco Rubio and Scott Walker. Assuming that all stay out, the Republican primary would look quite different. Before turning to the rest, let us evaluate each of the afore named.

Mitt Romney is well respected within the GOP hierarchy. An announcement not to run, followed by a subsequent endorsement of Bush would put tremendous pressure on Chris Christie to "be a team player." Besides the donors are one in the same!

Ditto for Marco Rubio! Could Rubio seriously take on his mentor? And, assuming that he did, what would the "moneybags" say? My guess is, "run for re-election, Marco. We'll be with you! And we know that you'll be with us in getting Governor Bush elected President."

Scott Walker? While a grassroots favorite, the chances of his overcoming this kind of inertia is improbable. Better to stay put, and finish what is becoming a conservative success story in Wisconsin. That is the way that Reince Pribus and friends would see it...

The early polls are essentially meaningless. Newsmax continues to post a survey that places Ted Cruz and Ben Carson as running number one and two. These are similar to the LA Dodger fans stuffing the all star ballot boxes in the eighties. Same held true for the Millennial heavy Conservative Leadership conference which gave Rand Paul an overwhelming victory. Enthusiasm is great! So is passion for a fresh face with new ideas.

The questions confronting the Republican base are "is Jeb the man?" Or, "can we agree on one alternative?"

With no Romney, Rubio, Christie and Walker, the field does thin out significantly. Left are Paul, Cruz, Carson, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, and Rick Perry. Governor Palin is almost certainly not running. Governor Perry almost certainly is running. Odds are, Jindal will do what he did in 2012: endorse Perry and be a key advocate in the campaign. Senator Santorum? Who knows!

A blogger on Tea Party Nation stated emphatically that Rick Perry was "Establishment." Yet, in 2010, Perry proclaimed himself "Tea Party." Which leads to the next question: "Which Tea Party?"

The original Tea Party Patriots organization allowed discussion only on fiscal issues. They would not publish comments on abortion, gay rights, immigration or any subject that was not related to fiscal issues. The objective of this original Tea Party was to bring America's fiscal house in order. Independents made up a lot of the original Tea Party. They also included disgruntled Democrats, unhappy with their parties lack of fiscal restraint.

Assuming that Rick Perry was a member of the Tea Party, it is probably this specific Tea Party that he referenced.

Should Perry be classified Establishment, it's a fair assertion to label him "to the right" of the remaining Establishment players. Most notably, Jeb Bush.

Why the significance? Could not Rand Paul or Ben Carson defeat Jeb Bush? If they did, they would do it with no Establishment support!

To truly understand the dynamics of a face-off between Perry and Bush, one must return to the Texas 2010 Gubernatorial election. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson was returning home to take on Perry, the incumbent. The polls had her winning by 20-30 points. While George W. Bush didn't endorsement her, Dad did. Her entire staff was made up on Dubya's old people. Karl Rove headed up "Team Hutchinson."

National Review's Kevin Williamson described Hutchinson as a "mushy oatmeal" Republican. She paraded across the Lone Star state reminding voters what she in Washington had done for them. Perry's retort was simple: "Yeah, but those duties should be reserved for the states."

Beginning with Dubya's signature accomplishment, "No Child Left Behind." You can also throw "The Department of Homeland Security" into that bin! Both programs were well intended. Yet, both amounted to more big government from Washington D.C..

In the end, Perry trounced Hutchinson and went on to handily win the general election.

This is the core argument going forward for Republicans. "Big government that is Washington based" versus "smaller government with more power given to the individual states." It begins with Common Core.

Jeb Bush embraces Common Core. Rick Perry vehemently opposes Common Core. In fact, Perry advocates abolishing the Department of Education altogether!

Most conservatives hold a yearning for "reducing the size, scope and cost" of the federal government. Getting there requires some practical cogitation. To be sure, Perry stands for those things. But, do any of the alternatives have a true zeal, not to mention an actual, on-the-job report card reflecting as much?

It comes down to being serious about retaking this country. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Ben Carson are superlative Americans. But this is about two questions:

"Is Jeb the man?" Likely he will be if facing Cruz, Paul or Carson!

"Who" is truly qualified to lead the free world?

Like Jeb or not, he has run a large, diverse state effectively. So has Perry.

Assuming that we are not satisfied with the experience level of our current chief executive, the rest of the field is clearly founding wanting.

Conservative Orientation, Previous Achievements, Should Deliver Best Republican Nominee

"It ain't braggin' if you've done it!"

A Texan truism? Actually it was Arkansan, Dizzy Dean who coined this classic phrase. But, it indeed applies to Rick Perry's tenure as Governor of the Lone Star state. In fact, Dean's prose might ultimately be the unofficial campaign slogan of a 2016 Presidential campaign.

Republican conservatives can't seem to agree on anything. EXCEPT that they want neither Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or Mitt Romney as the 2016 Republican nominee! Partly due to the fact that the GOP Establishment likes all three men.

The Tea Party is quick to remind of the failures in '96, '08 and '12. Yet, when proffering their alternative, the preferences range from congressmen, junior senators to people with ABSOLUTELY ZERO public service experience!

Get real!

The 2012 Republican primary was a monkey show; a feast for the lame stream media! Too many candidates and too many debates resulted in a nominee who was not the first choice of two thirds of the party base! How did it happen? Because the Republican Establishment was organized and unified. 2016 is sure to be a repeat. UNLESS, conservatives become practical.

Michelle Bachmann was Mitt Romney's greatest asset in 2012. She represented the far right and was successful in taking the discussion away from "reducing the size, scope and cost" of government to getting lost in the weeds on individual state issues and preferences.

I still cringe at her tainted references to an HPV vaccine that was never actually implemented, a $5000 Merck contribution and a state autobahn. She was joined by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in blasting Texas for passing(by vote of 177-4) an out-of-state, tuition waiver for Texas Higb School grads; who happened to be the sons and daughters of illegal aliens.

2016 approaches and we are still hearing about the "oops" moment for Perry. And, his questionable debating skills. But what about his actual report card! 14 years is a long time to weigh and assess a Governor's job performance. Most Americans rate "jobs and the economy" as the number one issue. During the past six years, "three of every eight American full time jobs" have been created in Texas. That leaves the other five jobs for the remaining 49 states!

It ain't braggin' if you've done it!

Liberals deeply fear Rick Perry. If you don't believe it, check out the Huffington Post! Perry has been called "George Bush on steroids." In reality, he is decisively to the fiscal right of Dubya. More specifically, Perry is a different kind of conservative. This is where the debate begins.

To truly understand what differentiates Rick Perry from Dubya,Romney, Santorum, Bachmann, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and yes, Ted Cruz, one must first define conservativism.

Rand Paul best did that in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington." According to Paul, "New Conservatives," AKA as "Neo-Cons" support a "large, Washington D.C. based government" having a role to "advance and facilitate conservative principles."

The Charlieston Voice, a Libertarian leaning blog goes one step further is asserting that Neo-Cons "favor big government, preemptive wars and hold strong CFR ties."

Perry, like Paul, falls under the alternative conservative, the Constitutional Conservative. This perception of conservativism is based on a "strict constructionist" view of the constitution. In short, if the 10th amendment did not assign a duty to the federal government, it should be reserved for the individual state.

"Centralist versus Federtalist" is another nethod of drawing the distinction.

Paul and Perry hold similar orientations. Paul's biggest drawback is that he lacks Executive experience. He would be a much easier matchup for Hillary Clinton, the probable Democrat nominee.

Conversely, Perry would create a matchup problem for Mrs. Clinton. Where running against Rand would amount to "scaring the socks" off voters by referencing some of Ron Paul's notions, Perry can simply stand by his record. Hillary defintely doesn't want to get into a "report card" campaign!

Contrary to popular opinion, Americans DO want to hear about achievements in a previous position. Texas is the second largest American state and represents the world's 13th largest economy. It shares a 1200 mile border with a foreign country and is seen as "point" on the immigration debate.

The looming question for Republicans not wanting a Bush, Christie or Romney nomination is "which candidate"(and ticket) would be able to defeat Hillary Clinton?

Everyone can agree that Mrs. Clinton has no record to run on. But, she will have a massive war chest. An opponent holding a "thin" resume will be easy to define and spin. Perry, however, provides nothing, save the normal liberal tripe seen on Huff Post.

It should come down to the "Centralist versus Federalist" preference. Are most Americans "Constitutionalists?" Or, are they "Neo-Cons?" Should this become the litmus test for GOP Presidential wannabees, Rick Perry's chances for the nomination will greatly improve.

Transcending the Brand

It appears that old preferences die hard!

As of this past week, the Christian Science Monitor has dusted off the "Mitt Romney for President in 2016" idea. Hasn't anybody been paying attention?

For reasons highly obvious, the "Dewey-Rockefeller wing" of Republican Party maintains aspirations for a "1968 definition" of conservatism. It amounts to "big government is good. Preemptive wars are profitable. Keynesian economic theory is the way."

All signs from the Sunshine state indicate that Jeb Bush will pass on a Presidential run. This is unfortunate, especially for Wall Street bankers. Jeb Bush, after all, is a banker. And, he certainly has name recognition! Better yet, he successfully governed a "must win" swing state. Even better, he was elected Governor in 2002 with the help of 56% of Hispanic voters.

Fueled by a nine-seat Senate pickup, some in the GOP are evidently overlooking the fact that the electorate voted against Democrats, not for Republicans. The Republican brand continues to be more liability than asset.

Jeb Bush has been out of politics eight years. His soft position on amnesty and support for Common Core better matched the mood of America in 2008. Or, for that matter, 1988. 2014 is new ground. Indications are his time may have passed.

Where would Romney fall in today's mix?

His immigration position is more akin to that of Tom Tancredo, which was reflected in his 27% Latino vote tally in 2012. Common Core and probably Obamacare would be like most positions Romney has taken over the years. As former Utah Governor, Jon Huntsman described, "Mitt's views are like a weather vane."

Credit Romney for recognizing Russia as more menancing than first thought. But, one could also credit Joe Biden for proposing that Iraq be partitioned. Only average intelligence is required to finger Vladimir Putin as a K.G.B. thug! Or conclude that affluent Sunni Moslems and Separatist Kurds are not going to be contented in a governemt run by corrupt, mostly illiterate Shia Moslems!

Which brings the party base to the next question: "If not Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney, who?"

The readily available answer for Northeasterners is "Chris Christie." He is a seated Republican Governor in a deep blue state. His tough guy antics are seen by some as "what's needed" in Washington. Never mind those tendencies of the "tap dancer"
that the more perceptive are recognizing with each passing day! In the end, Christie would be another "big government Keynesian who would placate Wall Street."

The question becomes "why" does the party continue to allow the Northeast to dictate nominees. Money? It is certainly not electoral votes. New Hampshire proved with it's re-election of ultra-liberal Senator, Janine Shaheen that it is as deep blue as Rhode Island. Smart money should write the Northeast off as "hopelessly Democrat," and stop wasting resources on it! That includes considering Presidential nominees from this region.

Perhaps it is time to do the unthinkable: "Change the name." It worked for Abraham Lincoln in 1864! There are growing numbers of Independents who might readily join the existing party base. Especially, if it were made clear that the Dewey-Rockefellers were no longer running the party!

In truth, the Republican brand carries mostly negative connotations. A rebranding or renaming of the party to become the "Jeffersonians" would invoke the true ideals of the base: "Smaller government, lower taxes, less centralization, and more individual rights for American citizens."

It amounts to transcending the brand, replacing a label that is considered negative by even the most stalwart members. In one sweep of the pen, conseratives divorce those determined to maintain the anachromism. Their long overdue replacement would truly represent the general paradigm.

Positioning begins with citing the bad. In this case, "we're making a clean break from those in the party who continue to push "big government, preemptive wars, and Keynesian economic theory," because "those positions are more aligned with Democrats and modern liberals."

Yet, identifying the problem is only part of it. Conservatives who make up the base must think both logically and politically. This is easier said than done!

Merely changing the name won't suffice. An appeal to Americans' who consider themselves neither Republican or Democrat must be on the table. It begins with a push to reduce the size, scope and cost of the the federal government. To genuinely do this, one must first become reacquainted with the 10th amendment.

It is here that the Dewey Rockefellers have traditionally raised objections. By citing them as the main detractors from attaining this standard, half of the battle is won. What remains is the need of a true leader, in the tradition of Ronald Reagan.

One advantage Reagan had was the experience of running a large, diverse state. Executive experience and it's importance cannot be underestimated. We have certainly seen the fruits of "on the job training" with our current President!

Reagan had a vision. It began with "reducing the cost of government." Even though he never enjoyed the benefits of a Republican contolled House, his administration scored huge successes. Especially in reviving the confidence of the American people.

Ironically, his primary opponent and later Vice President, George H.W. Bush described Reagan's "Supply Side" economics, as "voodoo economics." Bush was the choice of the Dewey-Rockefellers. Many say he drifted right in later years. But his true orientation surfaced as late as 1993 with support of Agenda 21.

In essence, the base doesn't trust much of the party leadership. No matter how careful the packaging, there will always be memories of Agenda 21, Keynensian economic theory, Common Core and Romneycare. It is time for a new direction, complete with a new standard.

Beginning with "reducing the size, scope and cost" of the federal government.

GOP Should Take Advantage of Midterm Momentum

So Republicans hold 52 Senate seats that could be 54 after December 6th!

In an earlier post, we predicted that "practicality and discipline" could yield ten seats for Republicans. They are a razor thin margin from that outcome! The question becomes, "now what?"

It comes as no surprise that Barack Obama isn't happy. In fact, he appears slightly disoriented. In his eyes not enough people voted and those who did were in the wrong states. His agenda? Well, it will continue, come hell or high water.

Many including myself believe that he is baiting Republicans. An impeachment attempt could return support to his column. The best way to make this happen would be to do something unthinkable. Such as execute an Executive order that would give amnesty to millions of undocumented persons currently in America.

The midterms are history. Obama is not concerned with re-election. He did make a promise to certain constituencies. Thus far, he hasn't delivered on it. In short, what does he have to lose?

While the public is weary of gridlock, the wind in no longer at the President's back. Smart money suggests that the legislature will address immigration reform during the next six months. However, as Speaker Boehner warned, the President's decision to act alone could "muddy the water" to the extent that nothing could be accomplished.

Some Republican Neo-Cons are hinting that the party should be satisfied to "take the low hanging fruit," such as Keystone and Corporate tax reform. True, there is sufficient support amoung Democrats to gain a consensus. Equally true is the fact that if the President balked on either, he would be further blamed for the gridlock that persists in Washington. There is only one problem!

He doesn't care!

Republicans will have six months to focus on righting many of the wrongs that have prevailed during the past six "nasty" years! The issue most Americans have on the top of their list is "Obamacare." True, it will be a fight. But, there may be enough votes to override a veto.

Politically, it's a gamble, albeit not a huge one. There is bi-partisan support for getting rid of parts of the Affordable Health Care Act. Reality dictates that the overall plan is too flawed to even tweak. Better to kill it now, without further adieu!

Republicans need to come up with an alternative that is easy to understand, that includes everyone. The plan needs to be based on Americans' number one want: "To lower health insurance premiums." Let's face it! We have a "health insurance problem," not a "health care problem."

A "half-penny national sales" tax, that would be used exclusively to set up a nationwide catastropic/continuous care pool," would be fair. Everyone would participate. Everyone would have access. The pool would only kick in when an annual claim or collective claims reached $10,000. At that point, the pool would cover 80% of the cost. The percentage would climb to 85% at $50,000 and cap at 90% when the tally reached $100,000.

The plan would be allow insurance companies to cross state lines. And, it would include "loser pays tort reform."

Without question, such a proposal would gain bi-partisan support. The issue of "pre-existing conditions" would be answered. And, due to the increase in competition, everyones' premiums would go down!

Barack Obama would be placed in an awkward position. If he opposed the measure, he would be advocating exclusion for roughly 40 million countrymen.

It wouldn't matter! Probably 75 Senators would vote for the alternative. The Affordable Health Care Act would be history. Republicans would be heroes with the American people.

Republicans could then accuse Democrats of attempting to "slip Socialism through the back door via their fated bill," further damaging the Democrat brand. It could have a devastating impact on the 2016 election!

Certainly there are those who would oppose the alternative. And there would obviously need to be considerations requiring further study. But the overall impact would be increased compeitition and less defensive medicine.

An argument can be made to implement the "Cat/Con" pool at the state level. This would almost certainly make the plan more efficient. And, there is always the possibility that insurance companies could co-op the pool.

Any way you cut it, this plan is far superior to the Affordable Care Act. It comes down to Republicans practicing what they have preached.

Thwarting Voter Fraud Key to America's Future

With pivotal midterm elections a week away, the anticipation of voter fraud looms!

Amazingly, many who will vote are not U.S. citizens. How could this happen? It's not supposed to! Is it?

The need for voter identification, ranging from merely presenting a drivers license to actual I.D. cards, is under hot debate. Democrats see it as an attempt to disenfrachise the poor and underprivileged. Libetarians fear that I.D.'s will make it easier for "big brother" to keep tabs on us. Yet, the majority of America concludes that it is only sure way to maintain election integrity.

This is the most dangerous terrain possible for an America seeking to stay together. Contested elections are the last thing needed by a nation so ideologically divided.

The discussion actually came to a head in 2000. 517 Florida votes were the difference between a George W. Bush Presidency and an Al Gore Pressidency. In the end, it was the Supreme Court that made the final call.

Republicians have placed a lot of time, emotion and resources on retaking the Senate. To not win would throw their faithful into a gloom that would be years overcoming. Democrats are guardedly hopeful. Some, such as Evan Bayh are predicting that the outcome will not be known until after Louisiana and Georgia's expected run-offs are decided.

In best case, Republicans will have a good night. Which would translate to winning seven or eight seats. This would send Harry Reid to the back of the room. Certain bills, previously blocked by the Senate Majority leader would be allowed a floor vote. Barack Obama would find opposition to most court appointments. Beyond that, who knows?

Maintaining integrity in our process can't be understated. A contested election could go a long way toward spawning a civil war in America. It is truly amazing, if not alarming, to note how many conservatives are quietly squirreling away weapons. This is why it is imperative that our states begin dialog over the need to peacefully separate, in worse case.

There is enough land in America to go around. There is oil, natural gas, coal, farmland and the world's best "human" capital. One America wants to take advantage of it all, returning to the "lets get ahead" days of the past. The other has been seduced by the promise of "social justice!"

Why not simply draw a boundary and co-exist. There would be no reason that would could not remain friends, allies and trading partners, as with Canada! In a "clash of perceptions," there is no right or wrong. The side with the most power wins.

Is it too late?

Nobody truly knows. But, the quickest way to find out is to experience one or more disputed Senate elections next month. If we do, all bets are off.

A second civil war in America will be ideological, not sectional. It will be the ultimate battle between liberals and conservatives. If the military sides with conservatives as it is expected to do, it will be over in a few weeks. The liberals will lose decisively. There would be massive immigration to Canada, Europe, South America, even Africa.

In best case, none of this will happen. The Republicans will eek out a win in the Senate and the issue will be prolonged for another two years. But what then?

Do Americans truly trust their Washington, D.C. leadership? Indications are, they don't! And this reveals the root of the problem!

Not all politicians are bad. In fact, most genuinely strive to better lives for their constituents. It comes down to the perception of Washington. Barack Obama has damaged D.C.'s credibility with false promises, outright lies and an overall abuse of power. All too many Americans are ready to simply give up; try something new, including a new country!

A New Beginning in the New America

Just Imagine!

Our existing U.S. Constitution; sans the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments! Now, let us add two new amendments.

The first would make it unlawful for politicians to exclude themselves from any law or mandate passed, such as the Affordable Care Act. In short, any legislation passed would be required to include everyone!Senate and Congressional term limits would be included in this legislation.

The second would be the proposed English language amendment discussed in my book.

Make sense? Maybe! Unfortunately, this would be close to impossible under our existing framework.

In a previous post a "Red State Convention" was proposed. The primary objective would be to reform or replace the Republican Party. Yet many suggest that we would be "whistling Dixie!" Are we past the point of no return?

Assuming that we are, what would be an alternative? The country is clearly divided. In fact, it has not been this divided since 1861. But this is 2014. We have television. We have the Internet. Unlike 1861, this is not the "age of innocence." Nobody relishes an "1860's style" bloodbath!

A clash of perceptions exists in America.

One side wants more and bigger government. The other wants less and smaller government. A surprisingly large number of Americans will accept fewer invidual liberties. Arguably more profess their "willngness to die" for more individual freedoms.

A part of America wants to build a wall around itself, leaving world problems to chance. Another part of America strives to police the world, profiting along the way. Still another faction says, "let's go the proven route of peace through strength."

One faction believes that human induced global warming is today's "most pressing issue." The other side concludes that man made global warming is "a hoax."

There are differences on economics that stretch beyond party lines. Most prolific is the decades old "Keynesian versus Supply Side" debate.

Then there is the "Centralist versus Federalist" argument. Likewise crossing party lines, one group advocates a large, Washington, D.C. based government. The other seeks to return more decision making to the individual states.

Cynicism exists in America to a greater degree than at any time in history. People have lost faith and trust in their political leadership. There is a growing belief that the present system breeds corruption. Newly elected believers depart for Washington with the best of intentions, only to succumb to a "culture" that naturally proliferates with tenure.

Our "American experiment" is relatively new, when compared historically to other societies. It has survived much, including a Civil War. Yet from that event, many of the original premises that served as benchmark for the nation's founding were lost.

In convening on a national scale to discuss the future of the country, we would be allowing the states to step forth and determine their individual destinies. Are we talking secession? From a certain point of view we are! Running parallel to this paradigm is another definition. It is called "Contraction."

Semantics? Actually not! Secession equates to individual states, one by one, breaking their bond with the Union. Contraction entails a "majority of states, bonded by similar standards, aspirations, ideals and economic goals, "excluding" states harboring ideologies considered malignant to their general welfare."

This is indeed something new! And yet, you could see it coming. Take a moment to note the election results over the past two decades. At first glance, a line does exists in America. With closer study, these lines become more defined by rural versus urban.

Politicians seeking to do away with the electoral college never mention the impact on smaller states. They know that with the right "tweaking," namely abolishment of the electoral college, they can consolidate power in larger states, holding large cities. Rural America would be left "high and dry," reverting to a lower standard of living with less say in lawmaking as compared to Metro areas. Such exists in Russia today.

When legislatures of individual states convene in their state capitals they will decide if they are "in or out." Even recently "blue" states such as Illinois and Michigan will decide that "being left behind" would result in potentially "cataclysmic" circumstances. In essence, "better to be "in," excluding or "contracting from" one or more counties who differ ideologically.

This may be an over simplification, albeit not by much. Midwestern states such as Illinois, Michigan,Wisconsin and even Minnesota are often "one or two counties" away from flipping. This is confirmed by recent Gubernatorial elections. You could add Pennsylvania to the list! Remove Philadelphia and Delaware counties and Mitt Romney would have won the state decisively in 2012.

Impossible? Think again!

The majority of the nation's wealth is in the ground or on top of it. Under the new framework, land previously owned by the federal government would revert back to the individual states. The national debt would be divided proportionately. Any and all banking debt owed to to banks not in the "New America" would be repudiated.

Radical? Perhaps. But, in full study of the Federal Reserve and the money that has been stolen from the American people over the past 100 years, the idea becomes more plausible. As G. Edward Griffin pointed out in his book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," Northeastern and Europeon banking interests have accumulated trillions at the expense of the American people. Time for payback is at hand.

The West, or most of it, would predictably opt for inclusion. California's impossible preference for "six states," would suddenly become possible. Eastern Washington and Oregon's dream of their state of "Lincoln" would be within reach. Large states such as Texas and Florida might become North and South, doubling their representation in the Senate.

Crazy? One Ohio Economist explained, "had the TARP money gone directly to pay off conforming home mortgages, it would have resulted in a giant stimulus. Instead, the money was given to the banks, who used it to buy other banks or simply stuck it in their vaults."

It has been estimated that there is sufficient petroleum reserves to serve our current populations' needs for "2,041 years." We have approximately 27% of the planet's known coal reserves. The U.S. possesses more natural gas than any country in the world. We have the earth's finest farm land. Why not set our sights on being the "world's supermarket and filling station?"

Instead, our malignant part has voted to stifle and regulate, benefiting the privileged and the well placed only. A new America brings such practice to an abrupt end!

Insane? What I consider insane is the eight or so globalist banking cartels holding a collective net worth that exceeds 100 trillion U.S. dollars! Interestingly enough, nobody knows for certain "how" they amassed such wealth!

Where would be the starting point? Obviously it must begin with a convention. From there, the most visible bi-product of Barack Obama's true aim; "to weaken America," would be pointed out and corrected. This translates to rebuilding the military, as Ronald Reagan did in the eighties. It would likewise send a clear signal to all Americans that any question regarding the "legality of contraction," would not be determined by "Philiadelphia lawyers!"

We would then make Social Security and Medicare permanently solvant, Healthcare really affordable and Education both affordable and attainable. Considering the nation's overall wealth, this should be a "breeze!"

Of equal significance would be the implementation of a "dollar that was worth a dollar." In essence, "a dollar that was 100% backed by commodities." The old Federal Reserve Note might adequately serve our Malignant counterparts. But "cranking up the printing presses" would no longer be an option in the New America.

How many souls would make up the "New America?" Estimates would span "betweeen 240 and 260 million." A future immigration direction would target applicants based on qualification, as is done by Canada.

Those currently in the country illegally would be given four distinct choices. (a) Service in the military, (b) Service in the Peace Corp, (c) Service in the Engineers(a option that will be discussed in a future post) or (d) Deportation.

In reality, the New America would need every hand! Freed from the fetters of government, there would be a boom like never in history. The "desire to get ahead," would replace the current "let's line up at the trough for our share of the boonies."

Yes, concerns would abound regarding "what would happen" in large, "blue state," cities such as Chicago and Detroit. Would there be riots? Or would the state militias, aided by common interest, new America states join to suppress any uprisings.

An option would be to "hermetically seal" problematic counties, cutting all ground transportation. Inhabitants would be allowed to immigrate to parts of the Continent not included in the new America. Or, they could participate in "Operation Homecoming," a concept that will be discussed in a future post.

There would be protests from "naysayers" throught the transition. And predictably heavy migration from Americans outside the New America, yearning to be a part of it.

The real litmus test would amount to "who loves America and what she truly stands for." It goes back to the decades old pronouncement: "America. Love it or leave it."

In this illustration, those loving the America our founders envisioned would effectively amputate the parts seeking to compromise it.

"Peoples Democratic Republic of America..."

Here is a fact that dismays Americans: "Arguably 20% of America is Marxist."

True, it is more prominent in certain parts of the country. I recall asking a friend from Massachusetts who had recently visited China, "what was it like in a Communist country?" He responded, "Massachusetts is more Communist that China."

New York City exemplifies Socialism with nearly every politician selected. It is difficult to turn a blind eye to the "virtues" that Cory Booker brings to the table as New Jersey's freshman Senator. Vermont has produced Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean. 85% of Philadelphia voted for Barack Obama in 2012.

Marxist? This may be an exaggeration, albeit not my much!

With the exception of New Hampshire in 2000, New England, New York, New Jersey,Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware have been carried by Democrats in every Presidential election this century. These states have voiced a clear preference for a larger role for government, effectively a "cradle to grave" relationship between people and government.

True, Pennslyvania sans Philadelphia and Delaware counties was carried by Mitt Romney in 2012. Ditto for most of Maryland's counties. New York, north of the 43rd and west of the 75th would be a "Tennessee sized, Red State." Yet, even with these missing parts the population would top 60 million; more than Great Britain!

It is clearly evident that this "Socialist leaning arm" of America prefers a path somewhat different from Southern and Middle America. Maybe it's time to grant them their wish, simultaneously allowing the bulk of America to refrain from an experiment that has failed at every juncture...

When a finger, hand or limb is determined gangrenous, two steps can be taken. The infected area is left untended, spreading and causing death to the entire body. Or, the infected limb is amputated, saving the remainder of the body.

This analogy should serve as benchmark for the "Pro-Contraction" argument.

To save America as we know it, a review of the the constitution must take place. Some existing amendments must be repealed. And, two new amendments must be added. To do this, three-fourths of the states must ratify. Under our present 50-state union, this would be difficult.

Repealing the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments would be an outright impossiblilty. Adding an English language amendment, making legal voter I.D. laws, would be difficult under the existing framework. However, if these Northeastern states were simply not there to vote, the impossible would become very possible.

"Bucking tradition" would be the main argument against contraction. Most Americans would passively say, "we just couldn't do it." There would need to be an effective counter argument.

"Money" and the promise of "more of it," answers the call! The Northeast holds most of the debt in the United States. If a new United States chose to "repudiate," as Russia did following the Soviet Union's collapse, "bucking tradition," might make sense.

Sound incredible? Read G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island." Upon conclusion, one might consider such action, "just and appropriate."

Wouldn't many anti-Marxist Americans depart the "Peoples Democratic Republic of America?" Yes! But, their replacements would likely outnumber them!

Americans are ruefully acknowledging that many of our people don't want to work. It is simply easier to live modestly but comfortably, accepting government assistance. In a "progressive" country such as the "Peoples Democratic Republic of America," first priority would be "equality and social justice for all."

No doubt there would be those who would take exception. It must be remembered that this culture was nurtured by advocates of wealth distribution. Unlike their vision, this version of wealth distribution goes beyond middle class bank accounts. Essentially it taps their wealth.

The "new" America will be a topic for a future post. Like our current America it would include 50 states. Unlike the current United States, it would be shorn of historical mistakes that have put us in the fix that we are currently in.

Left behind would be collateral damage, fruits of our on going, America experiment. "The Peoples Democratic Republic of America," and the "Elysium Confederation" would be the two most visible.

"Elysium Confederation-" One of the Three Americas

In a previous post we referenced "Three Americas," as a fourth alternative to a third party, "Splintering," or choosing a candidate by process of elimination. The "three Americas" are as follows:

1- The United States of America
2- The Peoples' Democratic Republic of America
3- Elysium Confederation

We will begin with the Elysium Confederation. The U.S.A. and the P.D.R.A. will be detailed in future posts.

"Elysium" would be composed of three of Venture Capitalist, Tim Draper's six Californias. Included in this 20 million strong nation would be West California, Silicon Valley and North California. The Capital would be San Francisco.

Chelsea Clinton would be handpicked to be Elysium's first president. She would be served by an advisory board that would include Californians Tom Steyer, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Al Gore.

Over a bottle of Chardonnay(actually several bottles of Chardonnay), they would conceive a plan that would separate Elysium from the evils of a polluted and Eco-unfriendly world! It would begin by patiently explaining to Elysium subjects that "not everyone should be stewards of an automobile."

A $10,000 per year "Automobile usage contribution" would encourage subjects to discard personal automobile ownership and consider alternative transportation. The Elysium goverment would contract with the advisory board members, to establish "Elysium line," a electric train that would provide quality mass transist throughout the nation.

The "Fossil Fuel Dissolution Act," would add a 25% surcharge to all energy bills utilyzing fossil fuels. This would subsequently encourage the use of alternative energy sources such as Solar, Hydro and Wind.

In further efforts to conserve energy, Elysium subjects would be encouraged to occupy new, "green," apartment buildings. These superbly energy efficient quarters, would reduce unnecessary square footage, thus maximizing energy output per person. Water conservation would be increased because the need for toilets would be reduced.

The Bicycle would become the symbol of Elysium. Each bike purchase would gain a 20% tax credit. While Moped purchases would carry no tax credits, they would not require a usage contribution.

Industrial Hemp would become a key money crop for Elysium. Subjects would be encouraged to attire themselves in "one-piece I.H. coveralls," the unofficial uniform of Elysium.

President Bill Clinton would become the official spokesperson for the Vegan diet, encouraged for all Elysium subjects. This "no meat, no animal products" approach to healty lifestyles would be encouraged with a 25% surcharge on all meat and dairy products.

Elysium would be one of the world's top wine producing regions. As a result, plenty would be available for Elysium subjects. Recreational Marijuana would be endorced by the government as an alternative to distilled alcohol.

Sons of Massachusetts and honorary Elysium subjects, John Kerry and Ed Markey would be given a special place on the advisary board. So would Michelle and Barack Obama. Collectively, they would insure a clean, healthy, utopian existence for Elysium subjects.

Conservatives Face Four Stark Choices

Conservatives in America have essentially four choices.

Choice number one amounts to starting a third party, possibly nominating Ben Carson or someone outside the political circuit. It generates strong emotions and would be the ultimate "in your eye" to the Republican Establishment. To many, telling them "it'll teach you a lesson, once and for all" would be worth it!

I call this the "Kamikaze pilot approach." If I didn't know better, I would think that a Democrat was behind it. After all, what strategy could do more to elect Hillary Clinton to the Presidency? A third party will not win. Even when the candidate is an experienced Chief Executive, as was the case with Teddy Roosevelt and his "Bull Moose" party during Ragtime. It never has...

Choice number two can be described as "Splintering." We witnessed this in 2012. Conservatives can't decide on any one candidate. Libertarians back Rand Paul. Fiscals get behind Donald Trump. Evangelicals choose Mike Huckabee. Tea Party opts for Ted Cruz. All the while, the Republican Establishment is uniting behind a Mitt Romney or a Jeb Bush.

In the end, we have a repeat of 2008 and 2012.Convervatives are divided. The party leadership picks the nominee. Conservatives are given a choice: Vote for our guy or stay home!

In actuality, Barack Obama and friends see a divided Republican party as the optimum future direction of America. They see the nation evolving into a one party system. A fragmented conservative front contributes to this aspiration.

Third Choice is to unite. The conservative groups outlined in an earlier post, choose one candidate who best represents all of the constituencies, including the Establishment. It would come down to answering the following questions:
(a) Which candidate would be able to energize Tea partiers, mobilize Evangelicals and be acceptable to Establishment?
(b) Which candidate would be capable of raising the money to run a 50-state campaign?

I refer to this choice as the "Elimination Approach." In essence, through process of elimination, we exclude nominees who,
(a) are unable to appeal to all of the three main segments
(b) are unable to attract low income, blue collar independents
(c) have never attracted more than 1/3 Hispanic voters in any election
(d) are tied to one prinipal issue

The "tie-breaker" considerations for the "Elimination Approach" should be as follows:
(1) Previous Executive experience
(2) Previous Military experience

Fourth Choice will be as the topic of a future post:

"The Three Americas."

America will still be composed of fifty states. But, some of her parts will be missing.

Google Tim Draper's "six Californias." Now google the recent(2013) movie hit that starred Matt Damon and Jody Foster. Three of Draper's six Californias, West California, North California and Silicon Valley will compose the new, 20 million strong nation, "Elysium." Chelsea Clinton could be their first President.

Turning east...Imagine New York, south of the 43rd parallel and east of the 75 parallel. Add New Jersey, Philadelphia and Delaware counties, Pennsylvania, six Maryland Counties and two of the three Delaware Counties. Now, throw in New England. Presto! We have, "The Peoples' Democratic Republic of America." The capital would be located in New York City. Michael Bloomberg would be named "Despot for Life."

Washington D.C. would become an "open city," more like a giant museum. It's historical documents would be available and accessible to citizens of the all three "Americas."

The Americas would enjoy a relationship comparable to Americas' current standing with Canada: "friends, allies and trading partners."

Promise of "Chits & Boonies" Key to Democrat '16 Plan

Make no mistake! It will be difficult for Republicans to win 270 electoral votes in the 2016 Presidential election.

In analyzing Hillary Clinton's recent Democrat Leadership Conference speech, the party's 2016 game plan is clearly evident. It can be summed up as follows:

(a) Gender warfare
(b) Class warfare
(c) Reminder of "improving lives" for millions of Americans under Obama's leadership
(d) A continued quest for Social Justice

She will predict, "if Republicans take the White House, you can anticipate that the "spickets" will be eventually turned off!" In short, entitlements such as food stamps, medical care, college education, even cell phones will be reduced, if not eliminated.

As Mrs. Clinton passionately reminded, those on the top would make certain that there "was no ladder" for others to make their climb. In her view, this is especially the case with women in America.

The speech was pure demagoguery! It is a glimpse into the Democrats' 2016 Presidential strategy. American fate will be decided, then and there. Republicans have an outside shot. But, the path to victory is narrow. To change the expected outcome, Hillary opponents must set aside differences.

The Democrat leadership is making this case to it's base. Their point amounts to "retaining control of the White House is the primary objective." The message is clear and blunt. "Let's not blow it!"

With Hillary as the almost certain nominee, Democrats see the election as "theirs to lose."

Record numbers of Americans are on the government payroll. In higher pay areas such at the Northeast, Midwest and California, entitlements can be worth as much as $40,000 per year, cash or equivalent. Recipients are reported to enjoy home computers, giant flatscreen TV's,smart phones, comfortable housing, free healthcare and education. Rejoining the work force would amount to a paycut. Mobilizing these voters will be as easy as saying "no more payola if we lose!"

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democrat base defend these constituents. Their question: "Shouldn't these people be included in the American Dream, in the name of American fairness?" It comes down to "social justice."

As expected, "racism" will work it's way into the conversation. Minorities are positioned as downtrodden, abused, neglected and exploited. As Hillary promises, "justice for all" will be the main priority.

The wage difference between women and men will be the keynote Clinton argument. Using stinted numbers, all astericks deleted, Hillary will attempt to rally American women.

The promise of "chits and boonies," coupled with continued assertion of "you deserve them because you have a raw deal," is powerful. Perhaps un-American and certainly devious, but powerful. Bursting the bubble will take more than a few slick television commercials! Is there a winning counterpunch for Republicans?

Actually, yes!

In a previous post, we introduced the "disaffecteds." While some anti-Hillary people remain cynical, there is an argument that these seemingly forgotten voters can be rallied. After all, Ronald Reagan rallied them!

To turn out these "conservative wannabees," we must appeal to both their "need for security," and their "resentment of being left out." Common sense would suggest that any family struggling to make $35,000 per year, with two people working, will resent another family making more without working!

Democrats will tell them they "need to visit their local resource center,"(unemployment office) to "determine if they qualify" for one of the many new entitlement programs recently implemented. In other words, "no harm in trying!" And, "don't be discouraged" if you were denied the first time! We now have the "Affordable Health Care Act." And, if we can "gain cooperation from those greedy, Republicans," we might have a $10 per hour minimum wage soon!

Believe it or not, the Democrats' "glass jaw" has just been exposed!

These voters, who slightly lean Republican will not be impressed with such an overture! They want jobs! Real jobs! With benefits and retirement plans. Their opinion of those "at the government trough," is a combination of resentment and contempt.

Most of these potential voters are classified as "Independents." They aren't sold on Hillary! In many ways, they are looking for a reason to pull the lever for her opponent. Cagy Democrat strategists know this. Their plan is to launch a "scare campaign" against the Republican challenger. Hillary will be presented as the "safe" candidate.

This is why anyone seeking to avoid a Hillary Clinton Presidency must take heed!
From past experience Republicans have learned two important lessons:

(1) Attempting to "out Democrat the Democrats" has never worked.
(2) Third parties have never been successful.

Don't think for a moment that Hillary will not wage a "dirty fight." She has no record to run on. But she will have a "monster" warchest. Expect a massive negative advertising campaign against her opponent. The question becomes "which" potential nominee provides the least amount of fuel for her onslaught?

Mitt Romney will be the ideal opponent for "class warfare." She will replay the tape that Mother Jone's David Corn produced in 2012. The result would be predictable.

Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta. She will refer to the constitution's requirement of "being born in the United States," which makes Cruz ineligible.

Rand Paul's votes and rhetoric will create the perfect ground for "scaring the pants off" working class Americans, not to mention minorities.

Mike Huckabee will be portrayed as the "religious fanatic" who supported Todd Akin in the 2012 Missouri Senate race.

A Scott Walker Presidency would be accompanied by a national "right to work law," effectively eliminating private sector unions in America.

Rick Santorum would make "repealing Roe versus Wade," his top priority, while pushing for legislation santifying marriage between a man and a woman.

A campaign against Jeb Bush would amount to a campaign against his Brother. Dubya's watch and the fallacies of it, ranging from Iraq to the banking meltdown would be recounted with vigor and great detail.

Chris Christie's stormy Governorship would be easy to run against.

Which essentially leaves Rick Perry...

The Travis County indictment could ultimately work to his advantage. Unlike Christie's "bridge gate," the evidence is faulty at best. Better yet, for Perry, it shows every indication of being politically motivated. The Travis County District Attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg has become a symbol of today's Democrat party. It will be difficult for Hillary Clinton not to take the path of Alan Dershowitz and denounce the indictment altogether!

The Establishment can live with Rick Perry. The Tea Party can embrace Rick Perry. Evangelical voters will turnout for the Texas Governor. Equally significant, these "forgotten Americans," the "Disaffecteds," will buy Rick Perry.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Perry isn't merely talk! He has a report card. And, it's a good one! In fact, when it comes to "Jobs and the Economy" there is none better! Perry will remind that there are "two million" less Americans working full time today than in 2008. He will attack Obama's job numbers with zeal.

Perry will also talk about "securing the borders." This is a critical issue to not only Disaffecteds, but the Republican base.

Lastly, he will talk about "peace through strength." This will score points with many non-Republicans. The Russians refer to Rick Perry as "a cowboy with deep understanding of millitary affairs." As a former Air Force C-130 pilot, this perception is predictable!

Most importantly, Rick Perry connects with the working poor. Growing up as the son of West Texas tenant farmers, he can relate to "not having an indoor toilet until he was six years old."

Perry's counter to Hillary's promise of "chits and boonies" will be "creation of millions of energy sector jobs" that offer high pay and benefits. These words may not amount to much in the ghettos of Detroit. But, they will resonate with Americas' working poor.

Unlike any Republican candidate, Perry can say to a Hillary challenge, "this is my record and I stand behind it! Now let's talk about your record; or lack thereof!"

Do Republicans honestly want to waste time and money on a primary?

Red State Convention Starts With Coalition Building

Two important points to make regarding any proposed "Red State" convention:

This is not meant to be a Constitutional Convention. As Glenn Beck warned, we should be wary about any convention that would alter the constitution in wholesale fashion. It goes back to "who" is actually running the convention. The wrong people could spell doom for the country. The is part of the problem seen in the current Republican party.

Secondly, the idea behind the convention is not necessarily "to form a third party." True, a replacement party might be the ultimate end result. If it happens, it happens. But, the goal is to "identify and organize a coalition." If all goes as it should, the Republican Party will be gutted, the Democrat Party castrated and Independents will have a home at last.

It begins with identifying which elements are with us.

Let us start with the TEA PARTIES. There are certainly more than one. All seem to agree on "lower taxes and less government." For now, we must make certain that the discussions don't turn to Abortion, Gay Marriage and Agenda 21! If they do, the remaining groups will identify the convention as a "far right bitch session" and walk away. For the sake of unity, these critical constituencies must stay on theme.

EVANGELICALS were originally brought into the party through Jerry Falwell's "Christian Coalition." The C.C. was especially active during Ronald Reagan's reelection campaign in 1984. Leading spokespersons including Christian Broadcaster, Pat Roberson, presented a conservative message based on traditional family values. Opponents were classified as "Secular Humanists."

Andrew Card, George W. Bush's Chief of Staff may have alienated these voters in 2008. Card later admitted to the mistake. The Massachusetts native now rates as another questionable Bush cabinet appointment. In the 2012 Presidential election, according to former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, only 30 million of the known 89 Evangelicals voted. 22% broke for Barack Obama.

LIBERTARIANS account for as much as 20% of the country. Ron Paul brought them out in force in 2008 and especially 2012. Critics remind that it was through them that the Tea Parties were co-opted. Still, a growing desire for less government and more individual freedoms top the Libertarian agenda. Paul effectively introduced questions surrounding the Federal Reserve. His son, Rand has apparantly accepted the Libertarian mantle from Dad and may be a 2016 Presidential candidate.

The remaining groups represent some crossovers. They are as follows:

(a) Reagan Democrats. These voters were first identified during the eighties. While generally favoring a progressive tax structure, a solvent Social Security and Medicare, Reagan Democrats want government only when they need it. These voters were turned off by what they perceived as the "excessive liberalism" of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. Today, many have departed the Democrat Party. Some joined the Republican Party. Others became Independents. In the 1980's Reagan Democrats in the South were often referred to as "Boll Weevils."

(b) John F. Kennedy Democrats. Slightly older on an average than Reagan Democrats, these voters are feeling left behind by the current Democrat Party. Like Reagan Democrats, they favor a strong national defense. Unlike, Reagan Democrats, they tend to be "pro choice" and slightly more to the left on social issues. To JFK Democrats, "small business and the working man" should be their parties' primary consideration. The fact that they are no longer on the Democrat parties' radar, has created a restive mood within their ranks. West Virginia Senator, Joe Manchin is JFK Democrats' "poster boy."

(c) Fiscal Conservatives. The voters could care less about Abortion and Gay Rights. What they want is an America that "lives within her means." Ideas that help business top their wish list. They are also interested in reviving the American Middle Class. It begins with "trimming the fat." Curtailing and eliminating government waste is seen as the number one priority. "Fiscals" almost universally support a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Donald Trump and Steve Forbes are classic "Fiscals."

(d) "10thers." This growing constituency represents the purist of Constitutional Conservatives. The "10thers" are the original "strict constructionists" of the constitution. In short, "if the 10th amendment didn't designate a responsibility to the federal government, it automatically falls under the individual state's auspices." 10thers support nullification. They believe that issues such as "abortion, same sex marriage and Marijuana legalization" should be handled at the state level. Texas Governor, Rick Perry stands as Americas' most renowned 10ther.

Democrats rank "10thers" with Tea Party members as "right wing nut cases." So do Republican "Neo-Cons." Yet, both 10thers and Tea Partiers promote a smaller central government. This creates our needed benchmark for creating something new.

Fiscals have no problem reducing the "size, scope and cost" of the Federal government. Libertarians are likewise in agreement with the idea. Yet, to effectively attract the JFK and Reagan Democrats, there must be attention aimed at preserving the safety nets. There must also be discussion relating to both short and long term immigration reform. Not to mention "Health Insurance" reform. Ideas such as "English as official language and voter I.D. cards," are greeted with enthusiasm by both JFK and Reagan Democrats.

Evangelicals, to the surprise of many, are often registered Democrats. In fact, the United Churches of Christ are generally liberals on all fronts. The good news for coalition builders is that Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, even Episcopalians, and Disciples of Christ(Christian Church), consider the members of the United Churches of Christ, "Christian nut cases."

Evangelicals can and will embrace the 10ther quest to "defer abortion and gay rights" to the individual states. They would welcome "public school prayer" to likewise be left to the states. Evangelicals, with the exception of the United Churches of Christ, believe that "separation of church and state" refers to "keeping government out of the church." Not visa versa!

Members of the Roman Catholic Church have historically voted Democrat. But that support may be eroding. The Church universally opposes abortion and same sex marriage.

It is been said that getting conservatives to agree on anything is similar to "herding cats." The "10ther angle" may serve as the "long awaited vehicle" to attain compromise. It's unlikely that conservatives will agree on any one theme or candidate. But, it's very possible to shove ideas not agreed upon back to the individual states. In reality, that's what our founding fathers intended.

The convention should begin with a review of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson's historic debate. Hamilton did not trust the common man. He believed that government should be left to the better educated, best connected and more affluent; preferably from a central location.

Jefferson favored the common man. He reminded that most had fled Europe to escape an entrenched aristocracy. He saw Hamilton's vision as nothing short of the "creation of an American nobility." Jefferson's remedy was "decentralization." He concluded that the common mans' greatest safeguard was "more decision making" at the state level.

"10thers" sometimes refer to themselves as "Jeffersonians." In studying the memoirs of Thomas Jefferson, the need for limited government on the federal level is easily understood. The third U.S. President was all about individual freedom. Perhaps his greatest assessment of government can be noted by his following quote:

"When people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."

This paradigm obviously amounts to the printing of "exit visas" for "Neo-Con" Republicans. In truth, these "Republicans" are more philosopically in step with the national Democrat Party. Their control of the current Republican Party has brought us to where we are today.

The "Red State" Convention can change this absurdity, once and for all.

"Red State Convention" Could Doom Republican Party

Something big is evidently brewing in America!

Earlier today, I was privy to some feedback from a November 2013 post, "All Roads Lead to Nashville." It discussed a proposed "Red State Convention," that would take place in Nashville, spring of 2015. The topic, "replacing the existing Republican Party."

The post also appeared on Tea Party Nation. Conservatives throughout the country are obviously thinking along the same lines! But, as this caller warned, "you are talking about destroying the Republican Party, no two ways about it!"

Maybe the time has come to commence entertaining such a notion! It is apparent that the party leadership has abandoned the party base! The disgraceful Mississippi Senate primary is proof that some people within the party have become so powerful, so important that they could care less what the majority thinks.

It doesn't take a whiz kid to recognize the "rift" in the Republican party. Only through threats of a "third party will do nothing but elect Democrats," has the so called Republican "Establishment" maintained their grip.

The Tea Party has been continuously ridiculed and chastised. They have been called everything from "fringe elements to NAZIS;" by everyone from Al Sharpton to Thad Cochran. Never mind the fact that they fished a broken GOP from the stagnant, post 2008 sewer, achieving major legislative gains in 2010!

2014 yields a different landscape. Today's Tea Party is marked by one basic question: "Which Tea Party?"

Originally founded as a "fiscal issues only" movement, today's Tea Party has become the landing spot for disgruntled Americans with a cause. Yet, getting everyone on the same page, as a convention would require, could be like "herding cats!"

It begins with adopting a platform. "All Roads.." introduced 15 planks. Today's caller added another idea.

"Cut our Corporate tax from 35% to 17.5%, if companies brought "half" of their outsourced jobs back to American soil. Bring "all" of the jobs back to America and the tax would be "zero."

"Each American company would be required" to provide "a minimum of $10,000 in health insurance coverage." This would work hand-in-hand with the $10,000 and up "catastrophic pool" initially proposed in "All Roads..."

The caller predicted the return of "millions" of jobs to our shores. Some would be low paying. Some would pay fairly well. American companies that continued to send jobs abroad, would be taxed accordingly.

Another Red State convention advocate sugggested that we ban public sector unions. Harry S. Truman would have seconded that motion!

"A fourth grade English proficiency test as a prerequisite for a voter I.D. card, complete with photograph?" Most of the folks in Washington would be horrified! But mainstream American would likely say, "why not?"

As the caller phrased, "we need to concentrate on "ideas, not people." The "people will come later." What's important now is "winning elections!" This equates to increasing the overall appeal. For years, Republicans have talked about "broadening the tent." The "Red State" platform would do just that.

"Those in charge" would suggest that this ploy would accomplish the opposite. Yet, are we certain that "those in charge,"don't merely amount to "opposite extremes of the same ingredient?"

True, there are exceptions. But, by and large, we have, to quote one conservative broadcaster, "Democans and Republicrats." They first argue and debate. Then, they assemble, usually behind closed doors and eventually reach a "consensus." If anything, it sounds like a game!

Ultimately to "scare" those entrenched to "get on the mainstream America bandwagon, while they still can," may be the the only sure way. Some won't. But, a lot will. Especially when those holdouts have been accurately fingered!

Mouthing "RINO" won't be sufficient! The distinction must be made between the "strict constructionist" conservatives and the "new conservatives." When "new" equates to "favoring large, Washington D.C. based power, preemptive wars and globalist ties," the knockout punch can be administered! And that is...?

"CORRUPTION!"

Disgust with corruption has non partisan sentiment. It is indeed sufficient to bring the walls of Jericho tumbling down!

It's vital to include those Americans who consider themselves forgotten. Therefore, it's critical that we concentrate on issues that impact everyone. It's imperative that we do not get "lost in the weeds" over specific items such as "Gay Marriage and Abortion." We must listen. If we do, we might learn something that we didn't know!

A convention as outlined would create the forum to make this happen. This is the starting point. Next, however, must be the "positioning statement." To leave it at we're the "disgusted with Washington party," won't be enough. Any replacement party must immediately define itself. Otherwise, the mainstream media will do it for them.

Saperstein's Proposal Might Create Problems for Obamabatts

Yesterday, on ABC's website, I noted a blogger who referred to
the Tea Party as "right wing nut cases and kooks!" It demonstrates how the left continues to harbor misnomers about "who" actually makes up the Tea Party movement. I guess it is rather complicated.

This opinion is not unique. 30-35% of the American population continues to stand with Barack Obama. True, there are two million less Americans working full time than in 2008. Yes, the debt is spiraling out of control. No question that the foreign policy is becoming unraveled worldwide. With a doubt, the borders are less secure that at any time in recent memory. The fact is, "none of this would be happening if it were not for "malcontents" too stubborn to see the light!

To these devout "Obamabatts" things are proceeding in the right direction. Anyone who questions the judgment of their "hero" is a racist. If you're still not convinced, take it from an expert: Al Sharpton. The only problem in the country are some "kooky, wing nuts" in mainly Southern states who are "dumbing down" the rest of America.

On August 13th, an interesting revelation came into light. On "Gamechanger Salon," a closed Google group of Progressive organizers, reporters and campaign apparatchiks, led by Guy Saperstein, said they would support the South seceding. Saperstein is a major Democrat supporter and part owner of the Oakland Athletics baseball team.

Saperstein surmised, "For more than 100 years, the South has been dumbing down national politics, tilting the country in a conservative direction, supporting militarism, all while demanding huge financial subsidies from blue states.

"It would be 100% fine with me if the South were a separate nation, pursuing it's own policies and destiny." he added.

In an email thread from the previous October, Saperstein was discussing a Michael Lind story on Gamechanger entitled, "The South is holding America Down."

Saperstein is also a former president of the Sierra Club Foundation and former member of the Democracy Alliance. The Democracy Alliance is a shadowy group of wealthy liberals who direct donations to progressive causes and organizations.

"I thought it was an impressive(albeit tough) big picture political strategy and proscription," Gamechanger member, John Stahl wrote.

"My comment was not made in jest at all." Saperstein continued. "Could we just let the South secede? Secession would be a gradual process, giving any blacks who felt threatened time to relocate.

"Civil rights victories would not be lost for any blacks willing to relocate and the ones who relocated would do much better in their new environments." he added.

Progressives often smear the Tea Party as "treasonous Neo-Confederates," begging them to secede and take their undesirable politics with them. How convicted is the Professional Left toward Southern secession? Nobody truly knows.

What we do know is, "be careful what you wish for!"

For starters, the Tea Party is not confined to the South. It is a grassroots collection of Americans who seek a better America. "Better" equates to more fiscal sanity in government, more economic opportunity, respect worldwide, and greater security at home.

The Tea Party's view of "better,"in the eyes of Al Sharpton and other Democrat leaders amounts to "better segregated in an effort to keep the black man down." The South is that "glorious bastion of white supremacy."

Like Sharpton, this ABC blogger failed to grasp the true depth of the grassroots movement. Maybe it's because few on the far left have taken the time to breakdown "who" actually makes up the Tea Party. It's really not that difficult.

The original Tea Party was all about "fiscal conservatism." There are several Tea Parties nationally. I recall Tea Party Patriots publishing a blogging axiom: "No discussion on social issues, only fiscal issues." In short, they would not publish comments relating to "abortion, gay marriage or immigration."

The initial membership was not confined to the Republican Party. Democrats and especially Independents joined! The 2010 midterms reflected these new members!

Then came 201l. Slowly, the Tea Parties became co-oped. Libertarians, seeking a home, muscled in, on the wings of their champion, Ron Paul. Today, it is believed that 20% or more Americans consider themselves Libertarians. They are in all 50 states.

Many of these Independents who became Tea party members can be classified as "Reagan Democrats." They support a Progressive Tax system. But, they also support overturning Roe versus Wade and a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a "union between a man and a woman."

Some of these new members ultimately moved on from the Tea Party, landing with Glenn Beck's 9/12 project. They chose to focus on Agenda 21 and the threat of a one-world government. Many of these member were later referred to by the left as "Tevanglicals." To the standard Democrat atheist, their faith based passion qualified them for a "wing nut," distinction.

While a large number of "Reagan Democrats" live in the South, they too are coast-to-coast. It is believed that "Reagan Democrats" constitute an much as 10% of the population. Coupled with Republican Social Conservatives, the
total tabulation may exceed 25%.

The original members, AKA "the fiscals" care little about abortion or gay rights. They want to rein in government spending. They favor a "balanced budget amendment," and seek to "reduce the size, scope and cost" of the federal government.

Sprinkled throughout the Tea Party movement are the "10thers." These are "strict constructionist conservatives," such as Texas Governor, Rick Perry, who take a literalistic view of the 10th amendment.

When broken down accurately, the Tea Party doesn't look like anything, save "red blooded, patriotic Americans!" So what's the rub?

Evidently Saperstein, this ABC blogger, Sharpton and others have concluded that the
Tea Party is nothing more than a fringe element of "right wing nut cases and racists, mostly confined to the South." To attain true social justice for all, maybe it's best that these "misguided reprobates" simply depart quietly in the night.

The question becomes, "what states are considered Southern?" If "Southern" translates to "red," we're talking a lot bigger piece of real estate than the eleven states that seceded in 1861!

Let's review the map for a moment.

By excluding "Cook County, Illinois, Wayne County, Michigan, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin and Cayahoga County, Ohio, the Midwest becomes solidly "red." Those living in the remaining counties could "hermetically seal," or "cordon off" those counties from the remainder of the state, requiring a visa for entry.

Remove Philadelphia County from Pennsylvania and another solidly "red" state results. If you divide New York west of the 75th parallel of longitude and north of the 43rd parallel lattitude, you have still another "red" state. Both "red" Pennslyvania and "red" New York would hold populations comparable to North Carolina.

Did anyone study Tim Draper's idea of "six Californias?" I did! It's a certainty that South California, Central California and Jefferson, would join the "red" states! There are 16 million people living in these three Californias!

Would we be disporportionate in population? Maybe. But, assuming Saperstein is correct, Black Americans would flood the remaining "blue" states! I am sure that they would be welcomed with opened arms by what remained of America!

Are we getting ahead of ourselves?

Not really. When "blue" states such as Minnesota, Washington, what was left of Oregon and New England pondered their options, one aspect would become apparent: "Their states would be quicly overrun with illegal aliens!" Not to mention "refugees" from "hermetically sealed," Midwestern cities.

States in the west would see "departing with red states," as their only way of not being overrun. Alaskans would consider themselves "liberated!"

It's possible that Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont might ask Canada to annex them. Three-fourths of Maryland's counties would be joined by one or two Delaware counties, eventually petitioning for separate statehood.

Because of the fear of being "swamped" with newcomers,the transformation would take place in months, not years.

Be careful what you wish for!

Travis County Indictment Reflects Dems Double Standard

Malice cannot be proven.

This is the most significant axiom learned in any Communications Law course.

Therefore, Democrats should not be surprised when their claim that Texas Governor, Rick Perry's alleged abuse of power isn't upheld. It could ultimately blow up in their face!

April 12th, 2013 Travis County District Attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg shook the very fabric of Austin's Democrat Establishment with an untimely D.W.I.. Yes, the D.A. was drunk. Very drunk, registering three times the required legal limit! Worse still, she resisted arrest, spewing threats and accusations at local law enforcement officials during her incarceration.

According to Lehmberg, she had consumed "only two glasses of wine." The opened bottle of vodka found in her car suggested otherwise.

To listen to her drunken drivel, it was clear that, in her mind, her arrest was intentional. Someone was out to ruin her career. Never mind the fact that there were calls complaining about her "driving all over the road." Fortunately for Lehmberg, nobody was injured.

Eventually, the D.A. pled guilty, serving 22-days of a 45-day sentence. Rick Perry asked her to resign. She refused. By law, he couldn't fire her. The question that lead to this past weekend's indictment, "could Perry's subsequent threat to veto funding of the "Public Integrity Unit," be an abuse of power? If so, he could face up to 109 years in prison.

The left leaning, Texans for Public Justice government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint. State Democrats were were quick to pick up on it. State DNC Chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa called for Perry's resignation. Yet, former Obama advisor, David Axelrod admitted that the charges were "pretty sketchy." State GOP Chairman, Steve Munisteri said, "a politically motivated prosecution" yielded the indictment.

In truth, the Travis County Grand Jury was overwhelmingly stacked with Democrats. Austin is said to be a "liberal island in the midst of a conservative sea." Under the Texas Constitution, Perry had every right to veto funding of the Public Intregrity Unit, which he did. The question that looms is "did Perry have the right to threaten a veto, in the event that Lehmberg refused to resign?"

Veto threats are used constantly by Chief Executives, from Presidents down. Lehmberg's behavior was unbecoming of her office. The jail video led to an investigation of Lehmberg by a separate grand jury. It determined that she should not be removed for official misconduct.

Perry called the allegation, "a farce." He stated, "I think Americans and Texans who have seen the video would agree that this is not the type individual who should be heading up an office that we want to fund." Perry said in an August 16th press conference. "I wholeheartedly and unequivocally stand behind my veto." Perry added that he would have not vetoed the funding had Lehmberg resigned.

Why didn't Lehmberg simply resign? Had she done so, Perry would have appointed a Republican to fill her position. Lest we forget, under her stewardship, the Public Intregity Unit wrongly indicted Tom Delay. Although Delay was eventually acquitted, his career was ruined. They also indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson who, like Delay, proved innocent of charges.

In short, this is partisan politics at the very worst. Most Americans should be outraged by it. To suggest that Perry wanted Lehmberg out, so that he could appoint a Republican, is presumptious. After personally reviewing the video,I concluded that this women should have resigned unconditionally.

The highly partisan Lehmberg was in process of spearheading another "Delay-Hutchinson" style witch hunt. It concerned alleged misappropriation of funds in the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Something unexpected took place. Lehmberg got busted for drunk driving! Then she resisted arrest. Her antics were seen all over local television. As one Travis County Democrat admitted, "Lehmberg was raked over the coals by party bosses for her actions." Yet, she remained in office. In essence "lip service and a mild slap on the wrists!"

Did Perry indeed abuse his power? His attorney, David L. Botsford didn't think so, stating that he was "outraged and appalled" at the decision.

"This clearly represents political abuse of the court system and there is no legal basis in this decision." Botsford added.

Still, Special Prosecutor, Michael McCrum will evaluate the indictment. "I took into account that we're talking about a Governor of a state-and a Governor of the state of Texas, which we all love." McCrum said. "Obviously that carries a lot of importance. But when it gets down to it, the law is the law."

Which translates into "what?" It can obviously go either way.

Conservatives can and will rally behind Perry. Lehmberg is a partisan hack who is, based on her liquor store receipts, a drunk. Perry's request for her resignation was the correct one. His refusal to fund any office headed by her made sense, especially considering the office was all about "ethics!."

Had Democrats had been truly interested in maintaining the Public Integrity Unit, they would have pressured Lehmberg to resign. This, they didn't do. Hence, we can conclude that the state Democrats cared only about keeping a Democrat in that position. Nothing more.

Should the case go against Perry, there could an outrage so prolific that the entirely credibility of the criminal justice system could become suspect. In reality, the case is absurb.

For grassroots America, Perry represents family, Christianity, opportunity, country, freedom from big government, and old fashioned American values. To Perry supporters, Lehmberg is the "poster child" for today's Democrat Party. She represents everything that conservatives loathe. In their eyes, there never was a case to begin with!

Conversely, if the ruling goes in Perry's favor, as it should, Perry will draw benefits. His decisive action reflects strong leadership ability; something desperately lacking in the current administration.

America is tired of Presidents who check the polls prior to making decisions. They are ready for a Chief Executive who doesn't make "political correctness" the prime consideration. They want courageous, decisive leadership. Perry knew that there would be partisan repercussions from his veto. But he concluded that Lehmberg, based on her actions, was unfit for the post.

Sadly, Texas Democrats missed a golden opportunity to place the state first. Lehmberg's refusal to resign, and her parties reluctance to advocate her resignation, is inconsistent with their plea for Republicans to acquiesce to Democrat demands on the national level.

When assessing Attorney General, Eric Holder's laissez faire approach to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the I.R.S., Travis County's indictment is woefully inconsistent. But wait! Were not all alleged wrong doers in Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the I.R.S. Democrats? And don't forget about immigration! Holder seems to have a tendency to enforce the laws that he personally thinks are just. Who cares about what the laws actually read.

This double standard is at the root of Democrats' credibility. Justice itself is supposed to be blind, never partisan. Americans hate double standards. While the mainstream media has been slow to catch on, their credibility has likewise become suspect. Perhaps it's time for them do their job!

Contrasting Rick Perry and Ted Cruz

This past weekend Conservatives attending the Red State Convention heard from both Texas Governor, Rick Perry and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. The looming question is "will one or both throw their hat into the 2016 Presidential ring.

Both are Republicans. Both hail from Texas. Both are classified as "Conservatives." From there the similarities become more vague. The most important consideration amounts to "readiness" to step in and effectively take the reins of a troubled nation.

Ted Cruz is simply not ready to be President. From an ideology perspective, he says all of the right things. But, he lacks Executive experience. Also remaining are questions revolving around Cruz' "conservative orientation."

We know that he worked on Dubya's election campaigns, which isn't a problem. But, didn't he support Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial primary? We know that Perry supported David Dewhurst in the 2012 Senate primary. So what's the deal?

Whether you like Perry or not, you know what you are getting. He is a "Constitutional Conservative." His beliefs are "Jeffersonian." In essence, "low taxes, limited government, and more power to the individual states."

While a good man, George W. Bush, like his dad and his brother are "New Conservatives." Neo-Cons support pre-emptive wars, international peace treaties, favor big government, and have strong CFR ties. Is Cruz a "Constitionalist" like Perry, or a "Neo-Con" like the Bushes?

There is also the question of how either would perform in the general election. Many "blue blood" Republicans look down their noses at Perry. He is a graduate of Texas A & M. The last President who did not hail from an Ivy League school was Ronald Reagan.

Cruz is both a Princeton and Harvard graduate. His academic achievements have drawn accolades from both Republicans and Democrats. Unlike Perry, who is fifth generation Texan, Cruz was born in Canada.

Some Republicans, especially those from the Northeast, simply don't totally trust Perry. He was, after all, a Democrat. In fact, he was the Texas campaign manager for Al Gore's failed 1988 Presidentional campaign. Perry insiders are quick to say, "how Gore's political views changed dramatically" between 1988 and 2000.

Also, brushed under the Rug by Democrats is the fact that Perry broke rank and voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and Bush the Elder in 1988.. He was one of the millions of "Reagan Democrats," who were referred to as "Boll Weevils" in the late eighties.

Perry greatly angered Texas Democrats when he refused to endorse the Dukakis-Benson ticket. Following the election, he left the party, returning home to Paint Creek to assist his father on the farm. It was there that he was recuited by Karl Rove to switch parties and challenge Democrat incumbent, Jim Hightower for Commissioner of Agriculture.

Perry has been Governor of Texas 14 years. He also served two years as Lt. Governor and eight years as Commissioner of Agriculture. Yet, his time as a farmer and as an Air Force Captain spans longer than that!

Cruz is a different generation. At this point, he is as untested as Barack Obama was in 2008. While an excellent debator and "rabble rouser," Republicans still do not know what they are truly getting.

Odds are, the Democrat opponent will be Hillary Clinton. Clinton has no record to run on. But, she will have a massive war chest. This translates to a "scare campaign" against a supposed "right wing ideologue." Like Rand Paul, Cruz is the ideal opponent to demagogue, thanks to a comparitively "thin resume."

Perry has a "thick resume." He could easily turn the campaign into "what I have accomplished as Governor of Texas" and "what you have failed to accomplish in every post that you have held.." This would not bode well for Democrats!

Cruz could greatly help Perry mobilize Tea Party voters. But his chances of beating Clinton in a general electon would be minimal. Perry can, at least, turn the election into a "report card" campaign; his versus Hillary's. He can accurately position himself as the "Washington outsider."

Much, if not most of America is disgusted with Washington. Yet, they have learned that "a fresh face" can have consequences if that "face" lacks the necessary seasoning.

Not All Democrats Sold on Hillary

This past week, tremors were felt from California Governor, Jerry Brown's domain. Could it be? Is the 78-year-old icon considering throwing his hat into the 2016 Presidential arena?

Could be. While Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to be the 2016 nominee, the deal isn't quite sealed. There are reasons why.

Richard Kim, the Editor in Chief of "The Nation," wrote, "Anointing Clinton now isn't just anti-democratic; it paints a big sign on the party's door: No New Ideas Here."

This obviously is cause for concern within some Democrat circles. Hillary leads in every poll. Even Fox News is showing her with double digit leads. DNC National sees Hillary Clinton as the logical successor to their enlightened hero, Barack Obama. The lure of the first female President. Bill's wife. Huge Warchest. Could it possibly get any better?

Evidently it could get a lot better, at least for some in the party! Jerry Brown has always been a rabble rouser. But his purist liberalism connects with many within the Democrat base. He has never been shy about seeking the nomination. Odds are, this might be his last hurrah.

3000 miles to the East, Elizabeth Warren has a growing buzz regarding her possible candidacy. As Kim longed, "Senator Warren, your country calls!"This is the same Elizabeth Warren who advocated the $25 per hour minimum wage.

Governor Brown, AKA "Moonbeam" has been around a long time. Amid his flamboyant rhetoric, a case could be made that on sheer experience and competence, he is one up on Hillary! Brown does have Executive experience. It's fact that his state is the nation's largest, the home of 35 million souls.

Wall Street shudders with the very notion of either Brown or Warren as the Democrat nominee! To many Democrats, Hillary represents the status quot. Remaining are unsolved problems, coupled with unanswered questions. It begins with how Middle America is currently doing.

According to Berkeley economist, Emmanuel Saez, "the top one percent captured 95% of all income gains in the so-called recovery. The bottom 99% percent barely gained at all."

Yet this was during Obama's watch. Why conclude that a Hillary Clinton administration would not arrest this trend? According to Peter Beinart of the Daily Beast, in an article written on "the Rise of the New Left," Millennials are facing "scacer job prospects, lower wages, fewer benefits and a weaker social safety net."

In a climate that exhibits unrest among American youth, according to Kim, it is "hard to imagine a Democrat of national statue more ill equipped to speak to this Populist mood than Hillary Clinton."

Enter Moonbeam and the Professor!

It's probable that RNC national would be licking it's chops at the prospect of either unseating Hillary! Together, things get real interesting! Let's dig a little deeper.

The Democrat party has balled itself into a tight fist. They talk about the Tea Party's rigidity. They should look into the mirror. You can especially see it manifested in the global warming debate.

Even though evidence crumbles daily, these "true believers" continue to live in Al Gore's fantasy world. While Gore flies around the globe in his private jet, pausing only for brief respites at his Malibu mansion, they remain convinced. Never once was it imagined that the former V.P.'s "Incovenient Truth" was really about his own personal convenience!

Hillary Clinton is a Progressive. By daughter Chelsea's words, "more progressive" than Bill. She has been on the correct side of every Progressive issue. But she is still suspect with much of the Democrat base. Maybe it has to do with her close affiliation with Wall Street and the Fortune 500 companies.

Democrats are quick to chide and ridicule Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz. But they fail to see the parallels. There are arguably as many ideologues on the left as on the right.

Growing evidence suggests that global warming at best is "an exaggeration, at worst, a hoax."

Obamacare is a disaster, with unimagined problems. It is truly a plethora of broken promises, based on faulty data.

The border crisis is growing with consequences still unknown. Their "hero" continues to turn a deaf ear to Rick Perry's pleas for help!

Our military is weaker than ever.

Our national prestige is slipping world wide.

Most American's are living from pay check to pay check.

In total, there are two million fewer Americans working than in 2008.

College tuition is out of sight for most Americans.

Could America expect better from Moonbeam and/or the Professor?

Evidently their supporters think so! The question becomes, do either Brown, Warren or Clinton have a grasp of the true problems facing the country? They think that they do. But is America buying it?

This will be the argument that Republicans must win if they are to reclaim the White House. It starts with the proclamation that these mostly "warmed over ideas from the seventies" haven't worked!

Our nation is literally "suffocating" from regulations. Both our Interal Revenue Service and our Environmental Protection Agency have been partisan arms of the Administration. It was 1861 when the nation was as ideologically divided as it is today.

The political left will have it's differences. There will be considerable clamor for change and a new Populist direction. In the end, however, it will be "same song, second verse!"

"Wealth redistribution with protection for the limited few."

"Socialism for the rest of America."