Not that this is a huge surprise!
The healthcare debate moves to the next round. It is improbable that Congress will be successful in slowing the train, even though a growing number of Americans are hoping that they might. In this great time of uneasiness, some solace may be found in turning to the wisdom of our founding fathers.
Let's pretend that Thomas Jefferson is currently amoung us. True, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't see the relevance. But a lot of distraught Independents including Millennials would. Jefferson's take on the "Affordable Health Care Act" would be as follows:
"To propel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
No doubt, Pelosi, Chris Mathews, Rachael Maddow and friends would say, "Get over it Tom!"
However, there is much wisdom in Jefferson's statement. For starters, it is never popular to tax unwilling people. Pelosi and friends would counter in reminding all that the bill did pass and was signed into law in 2010. Never mind that the reconciliation process was needed for final Senate passage. It doesn't matter that the Supreme Court later determined it to be a "tax." Who cares if upwards of 70% of the country is now against immediate implementation!
Some of the strongest advocates of Obamacare are Americans paying little or no taxes. Jefferson had a position on this:
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those willing to work and give to those who would not."
Opponents are vocal in the fact that this legislation grows the government to historic levels. In fact, Obamacare will account for "one-sixth" of the overall economy. Much was buried in the 2700 page proposal. In the end, it became understood that the "Affordable Health Care Act," increased the size and scope of government in a manner that amounted to unprecedented intrusion into the lives of Americans. Jefferson's probable opinion on A.F.H.C.?
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." He added, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Naturally Barack Obama anticipated resistance. His solution was to increase the size of the Internal Revenue Service. This accomplished, he could then instruct them to forcefully collect from those unwilling to succumb. Many if not most Americans fear the I.R.S.. The thought of the President using this unpopular branch of government to enforce a tax opposed by the majority of Americans is seen as strangely un-American. Maybe, this is because it it just that: Un-American.
To this, Jefferson's response would have been, "when people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."
The question becomes, "how much will the American people take?" The administration fears, "not much more." As a result, efforts are in motion to disarm America. Jefferson was very clear on this notion:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." His rationale was specific: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government."
A lot of alarmed Americans have seen the signs and are secretly beginning preparation for the long awaited house-to-house rat war survivalists have predicted for decades. While both liberals and moderates may scoff the thought, we must remember that there are roughly 270 million firearms accounted for in America. It is believed that many more may be unaccounted for. They are in the hands of an estimated 30% of the population.
Such apocalyptic references are greeted with disdain, even spite by the milk toast mainstream. But Jefferson may have seen it differently. He concluded, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
In other words, "you might want to dust off your exit visas, Nancy Pelosi!"
The question that arises is "how was Barack Obama re-elected" if his policies are so unpopular and his methodology so suspect? Perhaps is because they were neither unpopular or suspect to certain parts of the country.
The great megapolis of the Northeast has become a bastion of American liberal ideology. Much relates to the spoils system and the amount of American tax dollars that have been funneled their way. The counter argument amounts to "how many tax dollars" in proportion are sent to Washington by Americans living in these states. Jefferson's observation was quite profound:
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
Ironically, the nation's greatest financial interests reside in the Northeast. G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" recounts the growth of a banking cartel, outside the framework of the U.S. Government that has systematically stolen trillions from the American people. It began in 1910. 108 years earlier, Thomas Jefferson issued a warning that amounted to prophecy:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property- until their children wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered."
The end result has been a multi-trillion dollar deficit that continues to grow with each passing hour. Politicians have talked about solutions. But the end result has been to "kick the proverbial can" down the road. In other words, let future generations deal with the problem. Jefferson's position was very clear on this practice:
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
Including the war that could ultimately engulf America.
Few dare think of this outcome. But don't rule it out. Here's why.
We have a tiny group of international financiers who have gained control of most of the planet's wealth. The have gained advantage in this country largely with the help of non-tax paying Americans. The are literally banking on the rest of America doing nothing.
What about the 30% who control the firearms? Wouldn't the military be more than a match for them? Depends. The military is sworn to defend the Constitution. If it is perceived that the Constitution has been compromised, who knows!
Of course, there would be a much better way. Could not these cartels merely give back what was stolen?
There are currently eight banking cartels headquartered in the Northeast and Europe. Their cumulative net worth exceeds 100 trillion dollars. Nobody knows for certain how they amassed this kind of wealth.
Returning that which was stolen would probably be Jefferson's solution. The common man was always on his radar. History reflects his on going argument with Alexander Hamilton regarding "if" the common man should be trusted with governing latitude.
Perhaps these emerging Millennials may make the final determination. They will be expected to shoulder the burden of an aging population of Social Security recipients. Not to mention a massive debt! Many are shackled by currently unforgivable student loan debt. What happens if they say "nyet" to perpetual thrawl designation?
I sincerely believe that the answer is "not if, but when!" The question may be "how?"
Thomas Jefferson was one of our greatest Presidents. In rediscovering his memoirs, it is easy to conclude that the country is on the wrong track. As times become increasingly grim, reformers will be aided by two factors: (a) A large number of the older Americans who would discourage reform will die out and (b) the left will go too far, insuring a massive counterstroke by the right.
Both are happening as we speak!
Griffin described our currency as "fiat money." As he explained, "we have roughly one-half trillion in gold at Fort Knox. Yet our debt is 17 trillion?" His book described in great detail how our "money" was actually nothing but credit; a promise to be paid. If someone stops paying, the entire house of cards will fall!
The good news is, America has massive wealth under the ground and on top of it. Not to mention the resources and ingenuity of our people. True, the latter has been downplayed in recent times by the Council of Foreign Relations and other globalist entities. But it does remain, a potent force ready to reassume control.
Two things will be necessary. In Thomas Jefferson, we have one of them: a spiritual founder. His insights reflect the wisdom necessary to correct those things that went wrong.
What remains is the need for a contemporary leader. Is there someone out there who can re-introduce America to these Jeffersonian principles? More importantly, do we have a statesman who can restructure the government in a manner that it conforms to them?
The whole world is watching. And waiting.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Colorado/Washington Pot Laws Prelude for Coming Debate
Early indications suggest that the Department of Justice will take a laissez faire approach to Colorado and Washington's recent Marijuana law changes. The somewhat tentitive wording suggests that it may represent temporary constituent appeasement.
Both Colorado and Washington broke for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Colorado was considered a swing state. Politically, a different verdict would have sent mixed signals. Some recall Alaska in 1980.
At that time, the "Last Frontier" was the only state allowing both recreational use and private cultivation. When the state refused to criminalize the process, they were threatened with funding cuts. Specifically, "make it illegal or lose your highway money." Alaska didn't buck Uncle Sam!
That was then. But this is a different day. Alaska and Oregon now look to be the next states to legalize. From there, who knows? There are two arguments in play. One is moral. The other is ideological.
Some polls indicate that the majority of America favors legalization. But where are these Americans? Could the percentage be different, state-to-state?
Whether legalization is favored or not, the debate offers the perfect opportunity to distinguish conservatives. In short, a true Constitutionalist may be vehemently opposed to legalization. At the same time, he must admit that, in accordance with the 10th amendment, it is the individual state's call! New Conservatives(Neo-Cons) would never bring the 10th amendment into the debate.
The Marijuana question offers a golden opportunity to define conservatism. On one side is the issue itself. On the other side is the principle of states' rights. To many conservatives, "strict construction" is a thorny subject. We have seen it emerge with other issues. Governor Rick Perry and Senator Rick Santorum's reaction to the New York Gay rights legislation heads the list.
Perry would favor a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But, as he proffered, "New York passed a law allowing it and under the 10th amendment, they have that right." Santorum favored other measures short of the amendment process that would have stymied the action.
Does this make Senator Santorum a "Neo-Con?" Probably. He openly favors intervention from Washington, D.C., on an action that is truly within the state's jurisdiction. This is no different than the ultimatum given to Alaska in 1980 by the federal government. An action thwarting Gay marrage or Marijuana legalization would fall under the the definition of "a large, Washington, D.C. based government," their purpose being "to advance and facilite conserative principles."
The Constitutionalist counter is "good, bad, or indifferent, both are state issues," as defined by the constitution. Thomas Jefferson would have thought so!
"E Pluribus Unum" translated is "from the many, one." As an Obama supporter concluded, "it makes it sound like we are a collection of tiny countries." This can't be right! Can it?
Actually, it is! This is what our founders had in mind when they put the nation together. True, there are members on both sides of the aisle who scoff at such a notion. In some cases, utter contempt is the standard.
What is dangerous about this traditional reasoning is that it both contradicts the mantra of "big government knows best," and it is non-partisan. Democrats, Republicans and Independents can find common ground under the 10th amendment's conclusion that "birds of a feather should flock together."
Not convinced? Remember that infamous Tampa, Tea Party sponsored, Republican debate, September 2012? Governor Perry defended a Texas legislative ruling that waived out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. Santorum was joined by Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney in declaring that Texas' action was the incorrect one. Perry reminded the house that, no matter what they thought in Massachusetts, Minnesota or Pennsylvania, it was Texas' business. And, according to the Constitution, it is!
Conservative champion, Glenn Beck has accused Perry of "job poaching." But the Governor retorts, that "each state is meant to be a laboratory." In short, healthly, self sufficient states get better because they are in competition with each other. No longer is the name of the game, "how much can we procure from the D.C coffers?"
Republicans, even more so than Democrats, are threatened by this posture! It amounts to "downsizing and de-emphasizing" Washington. For D.C. influence peddlers, it would represent a mortal wound. Those "big government conservatives," would fear being left high and dry.
Today, the GOP looks to be facing a choice: "redefine their standard of conservatism or go the way of the Whigs!" Both country and party spoke definitively and decisively in 2008 and 2012. Confirmed was that the "Neo-Con" vision was more in step with that of the Democrats.
In essence, the issue isn't as much about Marijuana as it is, "do the states have the right" to make the call? From our founders' point of view, they do!
So there it is; the ultimate threat to our Washington, D.C. establishment. It is relatively easy to understand why any political candidate, especially a candidate for President of the United States, spouting 10th amendment truisms, is considered a threat.
Therefore, if Rick Perry decides to run for President in 2016, he may use that same argument used against Kaye Baily Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Governors race. For those who remember, Hutchinson went down a list of "things that we(in Washington, D.C.) have done for you."
Perry's response: "Those things would be(and should be)better handled from Austin."
Denver and Olympia would agree.
Both Colorado and Washington broke for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Colorado was considered a swing state. Politically, a different verdict would have sent mixed signals. Some recall Alaska in 1980.
At that time, the "Last Frontier" was the only state allowing both recreational use and private cultivation. When the state refused to criminalize the process, they were threatened with funding cuts. Specifically, "make it illegal or lose your highway money." Alaska didn't buck Uncle Sam!
That was then. But this is a different day. Alaska and Oregon now look to be the next states to legalize. From there, who knows? There are two arguments in play. One is moral. The other is ideological.
Some polls indicate that the majority of America favors legalization. But where are these Americans? Could the percentage be different, state-to-state?
Whether legalization is favored or not, the debate offers the perfect opportunity to distinguish conservatives. In short, a true Constitutionalist may be vehemently opposed to legalization. At the same time, he must admit that, in accordance with the 10th amendment, it is the individual state's call! New Conservatives(Neo-Cons) would never bring the 10th amendment into the debate.
The Marijuana question offers a golden opportunity to define conservatism. On one side is the issue itself. On the other side is the principle of states' rights. To many conservatives, "strict construction" is a thorny subject. We have seen it emerge with other issues. Governor Rick Perry and Senator Rick Santorum's reaction to the New York Gay rights legislation heads the list.
Perry would favor a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But, as he proffered, "New York passed a law allowing it and under the 10th amendment, they have that right." Santorum favored other measures short of the amendment process that would have stymied the action.
Does this make Senator Santorum a "Neo-Con?" Probably. He openly favors intervention from Washington, D.C., on an action that is truly within the state's jurisdiction. This is no different than the ultimatum given to Alaska in 1980 by the federal government. An action thwarting Gay marrage or Marijuana legalization would fall under the the definition of "a large, Washington, D.C. based government," their purpose being "to advance and facilite conserative principles."
The Constitutionalist counter is "good, bad, or indifferent, both are state issues," as defined by the constitution. Thomas Jefferson would have thought so!
"E Pluribus Unum" translated is "from the many, one." As an Obama supporter concluded, "it makes it sound like we are a collection of tiny countries." This can't be right! Can it?
Actually, it is! This is what our founders had in mind when they put the nation together. True, there are members on both sides of the aisle who scoff at such a notion. In some cases, utter contempt is the standard.
What is dangerous about this traditional reasoning is that it both contradicts the mantra of "big government knows best," and it is non-partisan. Democrats, Republicans and Independents can find common ground under the 10th amendment's conclusion that "birds of a feather should flock together."
Not convinced? Remember that infamous Tampa, Tea Party sponsored, Republican debate, September 2012? Governor Perry defended a Texas legislative ruling that waived out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. Santorum was joined by Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney in declaring that Texas' action was the incorrect one. Perry reminded the house that, no matter what they thought in Massachusetts, Minnesota or Pennsylvania, it was Texas' business. And, according to the Constitution, it is!
Conservative champion, Glenn Beck has accused Perry of "job poaching." But the Governor retorts, that "each state is meant to be a laboratory." In short, healthly, self sufficient states get better because they are in competition with each other. No longer is the name of the game, "how much can we procure from the D.C coffers?"
Republicans, even more so than Democrats, are threatened by this posture! It amounts to "downsizing and de-emphasizing" Washington. For D.C. influence peddlers, it would represent a mortal wound. Those "big government conservatives," would fear being left high and dry.
Today, the GOP looks to be facing a choice: "redefine their standard of conservatism or go the way of the Whigs!" Both country and party spoke definitively and decisively in 2008 and 2012. Confirmed was that the "Neo-Con" vision was more in step with that of the Democrats.
In essence, the issue isn't as much about Marijuana as it is, "do the states have the right" to make the call? From our founders' point of view, they do!
So there it is; the ultimate threat to our Washington, D.C. establishment. It is relatively easy to understand why any political candidate, especially a candidate for President of the United States, spouting 10th amendment truisms, is considered a threat.
Therefore, if Rick Perry decides to run for President in 2016, he may use that same argument used against Kaye Baily Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Governors race. For those who remember, Hutchinson went down a list of "things that we(in Washington, D.C.) have done for you."
Perry's response: "Those things would be(and should be)better handled from Austin."
Denver and Olympia would agree.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Republicans Hanging on to Dated Legacy
If only Jeb Bush would run for President!
With mid terms approaching, Republicans can only dream of those six Senate seats. There are several combinations that would work. But Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Montana, West Virginia and Alaska look SO winnable. All six states broke for Mitt Romney in 2012. In most cases, the result wasn't close.
Democrats see 2014 as the year where the Repbublicans' last chance(hopefully) comes up short. And it might. If it does, it might be a long time before Republicans are this close to controlling both houses. However, it's no certainty that Dems can split the remainder of the board. 51-47 could easily become 53-45.
With Obamacare now accurately positioned as a "tax," many former advocates may be rethinking the entire legislation. Without question, if Republicans retake the Senate, while holding the House, a floor vote will happen. Then those Democrats still holding to their convictions will be forced to defend their vote for a middle class tax increase.
It is fortunate for the Republican establishment that this "diversion" will take forefront. The party has never been closer to a split. This past election and the all out effort to "cram Mitt Romney down the throats" of the base, will not be forgiven or forgotten. The bases problem amounts to identifying friend and foe.
Imagine a triangle. On one corner, you have the traditional "Dewey Rockefeller Republicans." Sean Hannity accurately identifed John McCain as a leader of this faction. He is joined by Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle, Lincoln Chaffee(now an independent), Lowell Weicker, Dede Scazafava, William Weld and what remains of those originally labeled "liberal Republicans." Today, they are commonly referred to as R.I.N.O.s(Republicans in name only).
Actually R.I.N.O.s of today were pretty much the norm fifty years ago. They didn't change their positions. The party gradually drifted away from them. I can recall Paul Tsongas, a Democrat who referred to himself as a "pro-business liberal." He was considered by most Democrats as "more in tune with Republican" standards. And, from a pure fiscal point of view, he was.
The second end of the triangle is reserved for the "New Conservatives." Many might have been in the "Dewey Rockefeller" camp in 1958.(George H.W. Bush is one who comes to mind) Others came from (not surprisingly) Democrat roots. During the 1950's, many Democrats who took exception to federal intervention on such items as the court ordered busing, school prayer and abortion. They were not to the point where they wanted to discard the overall plan. But, they sought to draw a line. Their support for a strong military gained them much coveted status as "conservatives."
Were they actually conservatives? In their eyes, they were. However, their ideas of conservatism were not that far removed from the Dewey Rockefellers. Nor, did it conflict with the New Deal concept of the "central government managing" the economy. Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul described these new conservatives as "Neo-Cons." According to Paul, they advocate a "large, Washington D.C. based central government to advance and facilitate conservative principles."
The "dogmatics" occupy the triangle's apex. These Republicans seek a "full repeal of Roe versus Wade," advocate a constitutional amendment that would "define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," and to "deport all residents holding no legal status."
"Neo Cons" have successfully connected with this third group by taking a "pro life" stance on abortion. They have also indicated their "anti-gay marriage" preference. In doing so, they have strategically out manuevered the "Dewey
Rockefellers," effectively taking control of the party.
The question is "what percentage" of the true Republican base is represented by all three groups collectively? Surprisingly, it may be less than half. Some say it may be less than one-fourth, more like 20%! If that's the case, who actually composes the base?
During the past 30 years an interesting phenomenon has unfolded. The South, traditionally referred to as the "solid south" switched from reliably Democrat to solid Republican. It actually began in 1964 and continued into the seventies. Jimmy Carter temporarily slowed the defection in 1976. But the reprieve proved to be "fools gold." Carter may have been a Southerner. But his ideology was more consistent with his running mate, Walter Mondale. Southerners eventually figured this out and dumped him in 1980.
Ronald Reagan won the hearts and minds of Southerners with his promise to "reduce the size and cost of government." Out of nowhere emerged a new standard. True, the former California governor lacked the typical Republican pedigree. But his programs were not at odds with party pursuits. A standard had been established. And with it an alternative to the idea of a consolidation of power in Washington, D.C..
So there is lies! True, Appomattox is 148 years in the rear view mirror. But the spirit of states rights(Reagan called it federalism)lives. As a result, a "constititionalist" finds open and accepting ears to their argument that the "founders got it right."
Somewhere between the three corners of the triangle the "meat" of the party has emerged. They are made up of "Reagan Democrats," those who switched parties in the eighties, "10thers," who seek a literal interpretation of the 10th amendment, fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. Because they are a "hodge podge" of interests and viewpoints, they have been slow to assume their rightful place as "party chiefs and captains." However, one leader, one election could change that.
Democrats actually fear this result more than the Republican Establishment. These Republicans do not represent the Harvard or Yale crowd. In fact, most aren't wealthy. This is middle class America manifested. There is much common ground with traditional Democrats, namely JFK Dems. There are likewise countless commonalities with voters who refer to themselves as "Independents." It points to a "Ronald Reagan type" general election result.
Neo-Cons are hoping that Jeb Bush will ultimately throw his hat into the ring. While general election victory will not be assured, a lightly contested primary will be. The GOP status quot will continue. More conservative judicial appointments would be expected. Some sort of a national healthcare compromise would be reached. The military would be maintained. Big business would breathe a little easier.
Democrats know that Bush's nomination will make for a difficult, yet winnable general election. Florida will likely be off the board. John Kasich's selection as running mate could create an "electoral math problem." A Mexican first lady would be something new. But the message and the Republican image would remain largely intact.
The problem stems from "what if Jeb elects not to run?" All indications thus far point in that direction. If he ultimately decides to stay out, the race will be wide open like never before. And, that could ultimately result in a take over by the base.
It took a few years to figure it out. But, smarter minds have prevailed. The present Republican leadership is feeble at best. Money can always be found. And a new direction, complete with dynamic new leadership, stressing traditional American principles can lead to a new American experiment.
With mid terms approaching, Republicans can only dream of those six Senate seats. There are several combinations that would work. But Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Montana, West Virginia and Alaska look SO winnable. All six states broke for Mitt Romney in 2012. In most cases, the result wasn't close.
Democrats see 2014 as the year where the Repbublicans' last chance(hopefully) comes up short. And it might. If it does, it might be a long time before Republicans are this close to controlling both houses. However, it's no certainty that Dems can split the remainder of the board. 51-47 could easily become 53-45.
With Obamacare now accurately positioned as a "tax," many former advocates may be rethinking the entire legislation. Without question, if Republicans retake the Senate, while holding the House, a floor vote will happen. Then those Democrats still holding to their convictions will be forced to defend their vote for a middle class tax increase.
It is fortunate for the Republican establishment that this "diversion" will take forefront. The party has never been closer to a split. This past election and the all out effort to "cram Mitt Romney down the throats" of the base, will not be forgiven or forgotten. The bases problem amounts to identifying friend and foe.
Imagine a triangle. On one corner, you have the traditional "Dewey Rockefeller Republicans." Sean Hannity accurately identifed John McCain as a leader of this faction. He is joined by Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle, Lincoln Chaffee(now an independent), Lowell Weicker, Dede Scazafava, William Weld and what remains of those originally labeled "liberal Republicans." Today, they are commonly referred to as R.I.N.O.s(Republicans in name only).
Actually R.I.N.O.s of today were pretty much the norm fifty years ago. They didn't change their positions. The party gradually drifted away from them. I can recall Paul Tsongas, a Democrat who referred to himself as a "pro-business liberal." He was considered by most Democrats as "more in tune with Republican" standards. And, from a pure fiscal point of view, he was.
The second end of the triangle is reserved for the "New Conservatives." Many might have been in the "Dewey Rockefeller" camp in 1958.(George H.W. Bush is one who comes to mind) Others came from (not surprisingly) Democrat roots. During the 1950's, many Democrats who took exception to federal intervention on such items as the court ordered busing, school prayer and abortion. They were not to the point where they wanted to discard the overall plan. But, they sought to draw a line. Their support for a strong military gained them much coveted status as "conservatives."
Were they actually conservatives? In their eyes, they were. However, their ideas of conservatism were not that far removed from the Dewey Rockefellers. Nor, did it conflict with the New Deal concept of the "central government managing" the economy. Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul described these new conservatives as "Neo-Cons." According to Paul, they advocate a "large, Washington D.C. based central government to advance and facilitate conservative principles."
The "dogmatics" occupy the triangle's apex. These Republicans seek a "full repeal of Roe versus Wade," advocate a constitutional amendment that would "define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," and to "deport all residents holding no legal status."
"Neo Cons" have successfully connected with this third group by taking a "pro life" stance on abortion. They have also indicated their "anti-gay marriage" preference. In doing so, they have strategically out manuevered the "Dewey
Rockefellers," effectively taking control of the party.
The question is "what percentage" of the true Republican base is represented by all three groups collectively? Surprisingly, it may be less than half. Some say it may be less than one-fourth, more like 20%! If that's the case, who actually composes the base?
During the past 30 years an interesting phenomenon has unfolded. The South, traditionally referred to as the "solid south" switched from reliably Democrat to solid Republican. It actually began in 1964 and continued into the seventies. Jimmy Carter temporarily slowed the defection in 1976. But the reprieve proved to be "fools gold." Carter may have been a Southerner. But his ideology was more consistent with his running mate, Walter Mondale. Southerners eventually figured this out and dumped him in 1980.
Ronald Reagan won the hearts and minds of Southerners with his promise to "reduce the size and cost of government." Out of nowhere emerged a new standard. True, the former California governor lacked the typical Republican pedigree. But his programs were not at odds with party pursuits. A standard had been established. And with it an alternative to the idea of a consolidation of power in Washington, D.C..
So there is lies! True, Appomattox is 148 years in the rear view mirror. But the spirit of states rights(Reagan called it federalism)lives. As a result, a "constititionalist" finds open and accepting ears to their argument that the "founders got it right."
Somewhere between the three corners of the triangle the "meat" of the party has emerged. They are made up of "Reagan Democrats," those who switched parties in the eighties, "10thers," who seek a literal interpretation of the 10th amendment, fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. Because they are a "hodge podge" of interests and viewpoints, they have been slow to assume their rightful place as "party chiefs and captains." However, one leader, one election could change that.
Democrats actually fear this result more than the Republican Establishment. These Republicans do not represent the Harvard or Yale crowd. In fact, most aren't wealthy. This is middle class America manifested. There is much common ground with traditional Democrats, namely JFK Dems. There are likewise countless commonalities with voters who refer to themselves as "Independents." It points to a "Ronald Reagan type" general election result.
Neo-Cons are hoping that Jeb Bush will ultimately throw his hat into the ring. While general election victory will not be assured, a lightly contested primary will be. The GOP status quot will continue. More conservative judicial appointments would be expected. Some sort of a national healthcare compromise would be reached. The military would be maintained. Big business would breathe a little easier.
Democrats know that Bush's nomination will make for a difficult, yet winnable general election. Florida will likely be off the board. John Kasich's selection as running mate could create an "electoral math problem." A Mexican first lady would be something new. But the message and the Republican image would remain largely intact.
The problem stems from "what if Jeb elects not to run?" All indications thus far point in that direction. If he ultimately decides to stay out, the race will be wide open like never before. And, that could ultimately result in a take over by the base.
It took a few years to figure it out. But, smarter minds have prevailed. The present Republican leadership is feeble at best. Money can always be found. And a new direction, complete with dynamic new leadership, stressing traditional American principles can lead to a new American experiment.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
New Round Approaching; Have Republicans Learned Their Lesson?
We can all see it coming!
The shock of losing the 2012 presidential election has worn off for Republicans. Even those heated blame game, post election writings, are mostly a memory. The party is eying the 2014 midterms with vigor.
Obamacare is as large a specter as ever. Dodd-Frank looms as the juggernaut aimed at destroying the financial sector. The other side continues to not get the point that high corporate taxes encourage companies to ship jobs overseas.
What are we missing? Could it be trust? And if so, why?
Cynicism is rampant in America. Republican. Democrat. Independent. As one former CIA operative put it, "it's like a university with a red team and blue team." They are "opponents." But actually, "opposite extremes of the same ingredient."
One disgusted Republican, who referred to himself as a "constitutionalist" described the Washington establishment as "Republicrats and Democans." As he reminded, they posture, then meet behind closed doors and ultimately proclaim that they have "reached a consensus."
When reviewing the pedigree of today's political leaders, it is quickly noted that they generally belong to the same club. It is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and that infamous creed of Ivy elites. You might call them, "America's ruling class."
Almost sounds like "nobility," doesn't it? I thought that we had left that distinction behind in England, France, Germany or wherever our ancestors came from! Obviously, I was mistaken!
True, you can hail from a university outside the league. But the idea of term limits is something that has been positioned as a guaranteed way of your "non-league" representitive compromising influence. Especially when dealing with the ever growing federal bureaucracy.
In a previous post, we differentiated "New Conservative(Neo-Con) and "Constititionalist Conservatives." We showed the historic ties between the Neo-Cons and the current Democrat leadership. We even attempted to explain how both had impacted the churches.
The Neo-Con methodology mandates a close association(and preferably control) of the central bureaucracy. Because the Constitutionalists seek a more literal 10th amendment application, the bureaucracy is seen as something to downsize, as opposed to manipulate.
History isn't always kind! A suggested link to Leon Trotsky would outrage Republican Establishment types. So would the suggestion that the Democrat leadership is three generations removed from the Frankfort school. Yet, the end result speaks for itself.
Middle America is fuming. We are watching our country gradually melt away. The jobs that have returned have been generally "part time for less money." The cost of healthcare isn't decreasing. College tuition, except in the state of Texas, is skyrocketing out of sight. At every turn we are seeing more government. There is growing concern about a vast erosion of our privacy.
Yes, Americans are slightly cynical! And, for good reason! The question that looms is quite simple: "Can we resume trust in those same "Repubicrats and Democans to work something out, finding a "consensus?" Do we have any real choice?"
Maybe. But we must again consult history. Who was arguably the most effective president over the past fifty years and why?" If you answered Ronald Reagan, we're in agreement. Obviously most Democrats would say Bill Clinton. Some might say John F. Kennedy. For that reason, we will point out a commonality that all three shared.
Reagan, Clinton and Kennedy were "supply siders." They all believed in a market based economy. Barack Obama, the Bushes, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon were Keynesians. They believed that you could spend your way out of a recession. This notation is worth careful study.
John Maynard Keynesian, the famous British economist heavily influenced Franklin D. Roosevelt. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal has the Keynesian stamp. Historians conclude that Keynesian was influenced by Marxist theory.
Clinton, unlike both Reagan and Kennedy did not cut taxes. In fact,under his watch, the American people endured one of the largest tax increases in history. We also witnessed the beginning of the largest wealth transfer ever. This continued through the Bush years and remains in motion as Obama begins his second term.
Somehow, this sounds inconsistent! At least inconsistent with what candidates were supposed to stand for. Or, perhaps the country has simply grown so large and so complicated that a president is naught but a figurehead! At least one group thinks so.
"The Republic" is a grassroots organization that emphatically proclaims that America is neither Republican or Democrat. In fact, they describe the United States as "a corporation." Worse still, we are no longer run by people within our borders. It's truly a "global thing."
Sounds a big "lugubrious," to say the least!
For those not yet on board with "the Republic," another theory beacons. In 1910 a group of high level bankers secretly met at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The topic: "Big banks declining market share." The solution: "The Federal Reserve."
If you have read, "G. Edward Griffin's book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," you noted that these banking interests were largely from the Northeastern U.S. and Western Europe. Through the backdoor tax of inflation, the American people were unknowingly coaxed into paying for World World War one, the Bolshevik revolution, the saving and replenishing of England's 1920's social welfare system, the Great Depression, World War two, the Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the banking meltdown.
Inflation was their tool. Case in point: Look how much a dollar bought in 1910. Look how much it buys today! Meanwhile, these same cartels' collective net work has topped 100 trillion dollars! Nobody knows for certain exactly how they accumulated it. But some of us have an idea...
Which brings us full circle as to where we are today. We have a middle class that is shinking with every passing hour. We have a growing number of Americans in poverty. And, we have a tiny enclave of fortunates who are getting more wealthy by the minute. It is eerily reminiscent of Matt Damon's recent box office smash, "Elysium."
America needs a champion. More specificially it needs Ronald Reagan. Or, better yet, two Ronald Reagans.
While Kennedy was part of the club, he was a statesman. Clinton aspired to be part of the club. Where he swooned was after his admission to it. Unlike Kennedy and Reagan, the former Arkansas Governor never faced down the Soviet Union. He served in post Cold War America. His deficit reduction was a fruit of it!
A large number of Americans feel that only a social awakening can alter the decline. A point can be made to encourage life with the same intensity as termination. Yet, the issue maintains the perception of being "hot," or in Karl Rove's words, "toxic."
By the same token another formally "toxic" term may not be as toxic as in times past. The ability of individual states becoming more self sufficient is becoming a talking point. The term "Fedealism"(used to describe Reagan's agenda) is giving way to "individual laboratories" where states are encouraged to "invent" and practice "entrepreneurship."
Naturally, this goes against the grain of the "Neo-Cons." Not to mention, contemporary Democrats. After all, this thinking is polar opposite to their vision of a large, Washington, D.C. based central government, making decisions for us that are, naturally, in our best interest!
Republicans have a choice. If they find "Elysium" sexy, they should embrace a nominee like the last one. For those who think that "going left is safe," remember 2008. Both candidates were "Neo-Cons," by the way.
Conversely, a return to Federalism could be the true path to prosperity. Still, to embrace the 10th amendment is frightening. Our people have been conditioned to see big government as a security blanket. There must be tangibles that accompany change.
There must also be a certain amount of sensitivity exhibited by proponents. The other side will use scare tactics. What makes it even more difficult is opponents to Federalism sit on both sides of the aisle.
Constitutional conservatives can introduce new dialog, long considered "taboo" by Neo-Cons. Discussions about a "wealth transfer" aren't generally initiated by Republicans. Neither is a "Catastropic health insurance pool." Ditto for restrictions on offshore outsourcing and how to they could be "implemented in conjunction with a "cut" in corporate taxes.
A proclamation of "America first" hasn't been heard in recent times. In fact, the current President spent his first year making apologies to our European friends, on our behalf. Strangely enough, however, you haven't heard him apologize to the American people for the number of jobs that have been shipped abroad.
A Constitutional conservative can deride Fortune 500 companies. They can even link them to the same globalist banking cartels who systematically stole trillions from the American people. By merely recounting the policies and philosophies of our founding fathers, Constitutionalists can make the case for a grand exit from the United Nations and Isolationism.
Neo-Cons shiver at the very thought! But, the mood in America is troubled, positively restive! More Americans are feeling that they have been poorly served by their leadership. It won't be difficult to kindle the kind of fire that could really transform Amerioa.
All that is needed is another Ronald Reagan. Preferably two of them.
The shock of losing the 2012 presidential election has worn off for Republicans. Even those heated blame game, post election writings, are mostly a memory. The party is eying the 2014 midterms with vigor.
Obamacare is as large a specter as ever. Dodd-Frank looms as the juggernaut aimed at destroying the financial sector. The other side continues to not get the point that high corporate taxes encourage companies to ship jobs overseas.
What are we missing? Could it be trust? And if so, why?
Cynicism is rampant in America. Republican. Democrat. Independent. As one former CIA operative put it, "it's like a university with a red team and blue team." They are "opponents." But actually, "opposite extremes of the same ingredient."
One disgusted Republican, who referred to himself as a "constitutionalist" described the Washington establishment as "Republicrats and Democans." As he reminded, they posture, then meet behind closed doors and ultimately proclaim that they have "reached a consensus."
When reviewing the pedigree of today's political leaders, it is quickly noted that they generally belong to the same club. It is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and that infamous creed of Ivy elites. You might call them, "America's ruling class."
Almost sounds like "nobility," doesn't it? I thought that we had left that distinction behind in England, France, Germany or wherever our ancestors came from! Obviously, I was mistaken!
True, you can hail from a university outside the league. But the idea of term limits is something that has been positioned as a guaranteed way of your "non-league" representitive compromising influence. Especially when dealing with the ever growing federal bureaucracy.
In a previous post, we differentiated "New Conservative(Neo-Con) and "Constititionalist Conservatives." We showed the historic ties between the Neo-Cons and the current Democrat leadership. We even attempted to explain how both had impacted the churches.
The Neo-Con methodology mandates a close association(and preferably control) of the central bureaucracy. Because the Constitutionalists seek a more literal 10th amendment application, the bureaucracy is seen as something to downsize, as opposed to manipulate.
History isn't always kind! A suggested link to Leon Trotsky would outrage Republican Establishment types. So would the suggestion that the Democrat leadership is three generations removed from the Frankfort school. Yet, the end result speaks for itself.
Middle America is fuming. We are watching our country gradually melt away. The jobs that have returned have been generally "part time for less money." The cost of healthcare isn't decreasing. College tuition, except in the state of Texas, is skyrocketing out of sight. At every turn we are seeing more government. There is growing concern about a vast erosion of our privacy.
Yes, Americans are slightly cynical! And, for good reason! The question that looms is quite simple: "Can we resume trust in those same "Repubicrats and Democans to work something out, finding a "consensus?" Do we have any real choice?"
Maybe. But we must again consult history. Who was arguably the most effective president over the past fifty years and why?" If you answered Ronald Reagan, we're in agreement. Obviously most Democrats would say Bill Clinton. Some might say John F. Kennedy. For that reason, we will point out a commonality that all three shared.
Reagan, Clinton and Kennedy were "supply siders." They all believed in a market based economy. Barack Obama, the Bushes, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon were Keynesians. They believed that you could spend your way out of a recession. This notation is worth careful study.
John Maynard Keynesian, the famous British economist heavily influenced Franklin D. Roosevelt. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal has the Keynesian stamp. Historians conclude that Keynesian was influenced by Marxist theory.
Clinton, unlike both Reagan and Kennedy did not cut taxes. In fact,under his watch, the American people endured one of the largest tax increases in history. We also witnessed the beginning of the largest wealth transfer ever. This continued through the Bush years and remains in motion as Obama begins his second term.
Somehow, this sounds inconsistent! At least inconsistent with what candidates were supposed to stand for. Or, perhaps the country has simply grown so large and so complicated that a president is naught but a figurehead! At least one group thinks so.
"The Republic" is a grassroots organization that emphatically proclaims that America is neither Republican or Democrat. In fact, they describe the United States as "a corporation." Worse still, we are no longer run by people within our borders. It's truly a "global thing."
Sounds a big "lugubrious," to say the least!
For those not yet on board with "the Republic," another theory beacons. In 1910 a group of high level bankers secretly met at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The topic: "Big banks declining market share." The solution: "The Federal Reserve."
If you have read, "G. Edward Griffin's book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," you noted that these banking interests were largely from the Northeastern U.S. and Western Europe. Through the backdoor tax of inflation, the American people were unknowingly coaxed into paying for World World War one, the Bolshevik revolution, the saving and replenishing of England's 1920's social welfare system, the Great Depression, World War two, the Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the banking meltdown.
Inflation was their tool. Case in point: Look how much a dollar bought in 1910. Look how much it buys today! Meanwhile, these same cartels' collective net work has topped 100 trillion dollars! Nobody knows for certain exactly how they accumulated it. But some of us have an idea...
Which brings us full circle as to where we are today. We have a middle class that is shinking with every passing hour. We have a growing number of Americans in poverty. And, we have a tiny enclave of fortunates who are getting more wealthy by the minute. It is eerily reminiscent of Matt Damon's recent box office smash, "Elysium."
America needs a champion. More specificially it needs Ronald Reagan. Or, better yet, two Ronald Reagans.
While Kennedy was part of the club, he was a statesman. Clinton aspired to be part of the club. Where he swooned was after his admission to it. Unlike Kennedy and Reagan, the former Arkansas Governor never faced down the Soviet Union. He served in post Cold War America. His deficit reduction was a fruit of it!
A large number of Americans feel that only a social awakening can alter the decline. A point can be made to encourage life with the same intensity as termination. Yet, the issue maintains the perception of being "hot," or in Karl Rove's words, "toxic."
By the same token another formally "toxic" term may not be as toxic as in times past. The ability of individual states becoming more self sufficient is becoming a talking point. The term "Fedealism"(used to describe Reagan's agenda) is giving way to "individual laboratories" where states are encouraged to "invent" and practice "entrepreneurship."
Naturally, this goes against the grain of the "Neo-Cons." Not to mention, contemporary Democrats. After all, this thinking is polar opposite to their vision of a large, Washington, D.C. based central government, making decisions for us that are, naturally, in our best interest!
Republicans have a choice. If they find "Elysium" sexy, they should embrace a nominee like the last one. For those who think that "going left is safe," remember 2008. Both candidates were "Neo-Cons," by the way.
Conversely, a return to Federalism could be the true path to prosperity. Still, to embrace the 10th amendment is frightening. Our people have been conditioned to see big government as a security blanket. There must be tangibles that accompany change.
There must also be a certain amount of sensitivity exhibited by proponents. The other side will use scare tactics. What makes it even more difficult is opponents to Federalism sit on both sides of the aisle.
Constitutional conservatives can introduce new dialog, long considered "taboo" by Neo-Cons. Discussions about a "wealth transfer" aren't generally initiated by Republicans. Neither is a "Catastropic health insurance pool." Ditto for restrictions on offshore outsourcing and how to they could be "implemented in conjunction with a "cut" in corporate taxes.
A proclamation of "America first" hasn't been heard in recent times. In fact, the current President spent his first year making apologies to our European friends, on our behalf. Strangely enough, however, you haven't heard him apologize to the American people for the number of jobs that have been shipped abroad.
A Constitutional conservative can deride Fortune 500 companies. They can even link them to the same globalist banking cartels who systematically stole trillions from the American people. By merely recounting the policies and philosophies of our founding fathers, Constitutionalists can make the case for a grand exit from the United Nations and Isolationism.
Neo-Cons shiver at the very thought! But, the mood in America is troubled, positively restive! More Americans are feeling that they have been poorly served by their leadership. It won't be difficult to kindle the kind of fire that could really transform Amerioa.
All that is needed is another Ronald Reagan. Preferably two of them.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Blinded by the Name
To most Democrats, the Clinton name is magical.
"Fifty somethings" revert to the promise of 1995 when the gentle breezes of bi-partisanship begin to envelope Washington D.C. They remember the soft, amiable plea of "working together for a common cause." This rare flicker of reason made the case that both sides had good arguments. Yes, Bill Clinton was a master; at getting the mainstream to simply like him.
Reviews are still mixed concerning his overall success. To Democrats, he was the right mix of ideological principle and practical wisdom. Republicans point out that his success came as a result of a Congress and Senate not controlled by his party. All agree on one point: Bill Clinton was more pragmatist than ideologue.
It stands to reason that his "wife," Hillary would attract those still remembering Bill's magic. What is often overlooked is the simple fact that Hillary is not Bill. In fact, if one forgets her eight year stint in the White House as first lady, judging her strickly on her own merit, the clouds begin to gather. The question becomes, "would Hillary truly be the best option for America?"
A few vaguely remember "Hillary care." This was the debacle of 1993, when Democrats attempted to ram national health care down the throats of America. The end result was decisive 1994 losses in the House and Senate, resulting in loss of control in both chambers.
Hillary's subsequent relocation to New York City and Senate run made poltical sense. But, when reviewing her accomplishments at that post, you must dig!
The 2008 Presidential nomination appeared to be hers. During that January primary, I recall working as a Miami precinct captain. Both Republicans and Democrats concluded that she was in, predicting that Barack Obama would be her running mate. Republicans only question was "who" could defeat her in the general election. The notion that "an experienced moderate would stand the best chance" lead to the selection of John McCain.
Barack Obama is evidence that "credentials" mean little in a Presidential election. Hillary's lackluster term as a New York Senator was followed by a close Presidential primary loss. Toss in a stormy, if not suspect stint as Secretary of State and the "stretch" to locate success continues.
In essence, this woman has had every advantage, every benefit of the doubt. She has been embraced by a partisan media. She has been the recipient of a bottomless pool of funding. And, if the truth be confronted, she has accomplished very little in every position of leadership that she has held.
How could this happen? Are Americans blind? Is party affiliation and the promise of boonies so great in our society that we can simply overlook impotence?
Evidently so. We must remember, Hillary Clinton is your consummate globalist. Like Bill, she is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. She favors one world government. She believes in Agenda 21, AKA "sustainability." She is a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky.
Poppycock! Nobody believes in any of that stuff! Right?
The majority of America simply can't see this. For starters, it is too deep. Secondly, it is outrageous. It is what conspiracy theories are made of. When anyone of any standing in media begins to laud these accusations, they are quickly dismissed from the limelight.
Americans want peace and security. Any departure threatens most of the nation. True, certain parts of America are more self reliant. But, as a nation, we see government as a "backstop" to catastrope. Most of the country would opt for less freedoms in favor of more guarantees.
What about Americans who don't hold to these convictions? They do exist. And where they dominate, overall prosperity dominates with them. Look at Texas!
During the past five years Texas has created "one of every two" new, full time jobs in America. Companies are flocking to the Lone Star state. True, many are taking advantage of targeted tax incentives to relocate. But, this is the tip of the iceberg! When comparing the entire package, ranging from education to the environment, not to mention the economy, it's all about a more workable system.
Rick Perry has been Governor since 2000. To be sure, his strict, fiscal standards have drawn criticism. His naysayers continue to remind the country of the number of Texans not having health insurance. But the comeback is always the same: "We built a stronger state because we let people keep more of their money."
Can anyone visualize a 2016 Perry-Hillary face-off? Some are beginning to pencil it in.
If there was every a Presidential election that pitted an achiever/accompisher versus a non-achiever/non- accomplisher, it would be this one. Hillary supporters would be outraged with this comparison! But, the truth is what it is. It would be the "New York Yankees versus the Chicago Cubs!"
Rick Perry has a long list of accomplishments, running the second largest state in the Union. Texas has an economy that is 30% larger than Austrailia's. It is an extremely diverse state, sharing 1200 miles of border with a foreign country. Issues such as immigration and defense require actual response, not rhetoric in Texas. He has confronted both successfully, hampered only by Washington, D.C. restrictions.
If it sounds too logical, it is! Perry has critics from both the right and the left. Republicans are split. Smart money suggests that Perry would never get out of the early primaries. His biggest challenge would be to stay alive during the early two "blue state" races. The Governer learned that even his own party members don't want to talk about his Texas report card.
Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are hopelessly divided.
Imagine a triangle. The Bill Kristol "Neo-Cons" are on one end of the triangle, the New England, "R.I.N.O.'s" on the second end of the triangle and the "Dogmatics" on the third end! Perry is neither! True, his contingency represents more than half of the party (Some believe it may be as high as 80%). Doesn't matter! The first two groups control the party machinery. The third group is ready to bolt the party!
Could things possibly look more promising for Hillary? Who cares if her career report card reflects a "C minus!"
"Fifty somethings" revert to the promise of 1995 when the gentle breezes of bi-partisanship begin to envelope Washington D.C. They remember the soft, amiable plea of "working together for a common cause." This rare flicker of reason made the case that both sides had good arguments. Yes, Bill Clinton was a master; at getting the mainstream to simply like him.
Reviews are still mixed concerning his overall success. To Democrats, he was the right mix of ideological principle and practical wisdom. Republicans point out that his success came as a result of a Congress and Senate not controlled by his party. All agree on one point: Bill Clinton was more pragmatist than ideologue.
It stands to reason that his "wife," Hillary would attract those still remembering Bill's magic. What is often overlooked is the simple fact that Hillary is not Bill. In fact, if one forgets her eight year stint in the White House as first lady, judging her strickly on her own merit, the clouds begin to gather. The question becomes, "would Hillary truly be the best option for America?"
A few vaguely remember "Hillary care." This was the debacle of 1993, when Democrats attempted to ram national health care down the throats of America. The end result was decisive 1994 losses in the House and Senate, resulting in loss of control in both chambers.
Hillary's subsequent relocation to New York City and Senate run made poltical sense. But, when reviewing her accomplishments at that post, you must dig!
The 2008 Presidential nomination appeared to be hers. During that January primary, I recall working as a Miami precinct captain. Both Republicans and Democrats concluded that she was in, predicting that Barack Obama would be her running mate. Republicans only question was "who" could defeat her in the general election. The notion that "an experienced moderate would stand the best chance" lead to the selection of John McCain.
Barack Obama is evidence that "credentials" mean little in a Presidential election. Hillary's lackluster term as a New York Senator was followed by a close Presidential primary loss. Toss in a stormy, if not suspect stint as Secretary of State and the "stretch" to locate success continues.
In essence, this woman has had every advantage, every benefit of the doubt. She has been embraced by a partisan media. She has been the recipient of a bottomless pool of funding. And, if the truth be confronted, she has accomplished very little in every position of leadership that she has held.
How could this happen? Are Americans blind? Is party affiliation and the promise of boonies so great in our society that we can simply overlook impotence?
Evidently so. We must remember, Hillary Clinton is your consummate globalist. Like Bill, she is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. She favors one world government. She believes in Agenda 21, AKA "sustainability." She is a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky.
Poppycock! Nobody believes in any of that stuff! Right?
The majority of America simply can't see this. For starters, it is too deep. Secondly, it is outrageous. It is what conspiracy theories are made of. When anyone of any standing in media begins to laud these accusations, they are quickly dismissed from the limelight.
Americans want peace and security. Any departure threatens most of the nation. True, certain parts of America are more self reliant. But, as a nation, we see government as a "backstop" to catastrope. Most of the country would opt for less freedoms in favor of more guarantees.
What about Americans who don't hold to these convictions? They do exist. And where they dominate, overall prosperity dominates with them. Look at Texas!
During the past five years Texas has created "one of every two" new, full time jobs in America. Companies are flocking to the Lone Star state. True, many are taking advantage of targeted tax incentives to relocate. But, this is the tip of the iceberg! When comparing the entire package, ranging from education to the environment, not to mention the economy, it's all about a more workable system.
Rick Perry has been Governor since 2000. To be sure, his strict, fiscal standards have drawn criticism. His naysayers continue to remind the country of the number of Texans not having health insurance. But the comeback is always the same: "We built a stronger state because we let people keep more of their money."
Can anyone visualize a 2016 Perry-Hillary face-off? Some are beginning to pencil it in.
If there was every a Presidential election that pitted an achiever/accompisher versus a non-achiever/non- accomplisher, it would be this one. Hillary supporters would be outraged with this comparison! But, the truth is what it is. It would be the "New York Yankees versus the Chicago Cubs!"
Rick Perry has a long list of accomplishments, running the second largest state in the Union. Texas has an economy that is 30% larger than Austrailia's. It is an extremely diverse state, sharing 1200 miles of border with a foreign country. Issues such as immigration and defense require actual response, not rhetoric in Texas. He has confronted both successfully, hampered only by Washington, D.C. restrictions.
If it sounds too logical, it is! Perry has critics from both the right and the left. Republicans are split. Smart money suggests that Perry would never get out of the early primaries. His biggest challenge would be to stay alive during the early two "blue state" races. The Governer learned that even his own party members don't want to talk about his Texas report card.
Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are hopelessly divided.
Imagine a triangle. The Bill Kristol "Neo-Cons" are on one end of the triangle, the New England, "R.I.N.O.'s" on the second end of the triangle and the "Dogmatics" on the third end! Perry is neither! True, his contingency represents more than half of the party (Some believe it may be as high as 80%). Doesn't matter! The first two groups control the party machinery. The third group is ready to bolt the party!
Could things possibly look more promising for Hillary? Who cares if her career report card reflects a "C minus!"
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Rubio's Overture First Step Toward "E"
This past week Florida Senator, Marco Rubio came out in favor of "requiring passage of an English proficiency exam" for a Green Card. Could he have read "E" is for English? For those who did, you'll remember that this was one of the proposals.
These are troubled times in our country. While everyone continues to anticipate an economic rebound, there remains creeping doubt on if things will ever truly turn around. It comes from an economy that is not producing jobs at a rate that is keeping up with population growth. There are millions who remain under employed. Still others have given up, either taking early Social Security or finding other ways to make ends meet.
Obamacare rests squarely on the horizon. Those in the industry are getting a preview and don't like what they are seeing. As one veteran senior administrator put it, "people are being booted out of hospitals prematurely. They don't understand." The question most asked is, "how could AARP endorse such a program?"
The 108 million Baby Boomers are beginning to retire. There are not sufficient numbers to replace them. Pragmatists see proper immigration reform as a partial answer. Yet, like the Soviet Union in the mid-1980's, we are so caught up in political correctness, lawsuits and threats of some sort of discrimination that we are essentially "bound and gagged."
For those who were around during the Reagan years, you remember that we were surging ahead with computers and the "Strategic Defense Initiative," AKA "Star Wars." Meanwhile, the Soviets were enmeshed in endless Communist prohibitions. The Reagan led America left them in the dust. In 1989 the U.S.S.R. died quietly.
Perhaps we have forgotten the eighties. If so, it's time for a refresher course. Thirty years ago, Walter Mondale and friends were touting that they would "draw the line" on placing defense missles "into the heavens."
When the Reagan tax cuts were introduced, it was Mondale who protested, "in the name of decency." Their alternative was "higher taxes" for the rich. The intrepretation of "rich" amounted to anyone making more than $20,000 per year(1984 money).
They talked about "social justice." This translated to a federal government that sought greater involvement in our everyday lives. Out-of-touch Federal Judges were handing down mandates that generally equated to needless and unjustified spending for state and local governments.
It appears that we have gone full circle.
Reagan left office 25 years ago. Today's 40-year-old wasn't likely engrossed in civics at age 15. Most can't remember the Soviet Union or the Cold War. What some do remember, vaguely, is 1992. That was the year that Bill Clinton came into office. It was the period when we began to hear that increasingly utilized term: "Political Correctness."
Check history! "Political Correctness" is derived from Marxism. Somehow, it became "uncool" to criticize anything or anybody who might be at odds with the status quot. During Clinton's tenure, America benefited greatly from the demise of the Soviet Union. Money originally ticketed for defense became available for other needs.
Clinton and company made a bid for Universal Health Care in 1993. Remember "Hillary Care?" It crashed and burned, leading to a 1994 Republican takeover in the House and Senate. As was his practice, Clinton moderated. Some meaningful legislation did pass.
Was Bill Clinton actually a moderate?
A better word was "pragmatist." He assessed the landscape and elected to play "small ball,"gaining minor victories while securing his legacy.
Those who lived in Arkansas at the time of his Governorship contended that Bill was "right" of his wife. Hillary was always seen as the "liberal outsider" who adversely influenced her husband. Yet, those who knew Bill Clinton described his as "Walter Mondale with an Arkansas drawl." It came as no surprise when he aggressively stumped for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election bid.
Which leads us back to our "full circle."
We may have "1980 in 2016." Current polls are not predicting it. But, it is early. A lot could happen over the next 30 months! Including, the introduction of legislation that would "bag" all concerns in one brilliant stroke of "politically incorrectness."
Obamacare could ultimately lead to nullification. The more states that exercise nullification, the more that will consider it. Once it starts, other federal laws and mandates will come under the microscope! In the end, "opt out" might become a watch phrase!
This is a dangerous path for the country. Yet it is constititional. So is a states right to dissolve it's relationship with the union. Some states may be quietly contemplating this development. Has anyone noticed Texas $1,000,000 advertising expenditure in the hope of luring New York and Connecticut based companies to move their operations to the Lone Star state?
Sound crazy? Don't bet the the ranch on it! There are a lot of angry people in the country. Very angry people! As in, mad enough to take up a gun and look for targets.
Obamacare represents one-sixth of the economy. More than half of the country doesn't want it. Yet the proponents are hell bent on cramming it down the rest of the countries throat! Bad idea!
Even worse is the push to naturalize every possible "non-incomed" person, promising them boonies(including medical cards) in exchange for support. Who would have believed such arrogance! Yet, it is upon us. The bet is Americans will sitting back and do nothing, allowing those with "no skin" in the game to call the shots.
What Senator Rubio supports is the first step toward arresting this momentum. If we can have a literacy test for a Green Card, we can have a literacy test for a Voter I.D. Card. And this is the predicted path that will ultimately lead to a paradigm shift in America.
Can it happen? Yes it can! Fed up Americans will happily consent to this change in the suffrage standard. Even those "on the fence" will gladly acquiesce when introduced to an apocalyptic alternative that promises war, bloodshed and worse.
Amazingly, what is front of us is not new! The Mondale people were talking these same ideas in the seventies and later the eighties. True, many who were around then are not here now. The hope is that the "new blood" can re-introduced to these same tired arguments.
Rubio's position is new and somewhat startling. He is positioning assimilation as the gate keeper to citizenship. English as the official language will soon follow. The majority of America is with the Florida Senator. When the last piece of the puzzle, literacy, becomes part of the mix, the nation will then move toward it pivotal choice:
At that juncture, the debate will be over.
Enter the "E" Amendment.
These are troubled times in our country. While everyone continues to anticipate an economic rebound, there remains creeping doubt on if things will ever truly turn around. It comes from an economy that is not producing jobs at a rate that is keeping up with population growth. There are millions who remain under employed. Still others have given up, either taking early Social Security or finding other ways to make ends meet.
Obamacare rests squarely on the horizon. Those in the industry are getting a preview and don't like what they are seeing. As one veteran senior administrator put it, "people are being booted out of hospitals prematurely. They don't understand." The question most asked is, "how could AARP endorse such a program?"
The 108 million Baby Boomers are beginning to retire. There are not sufficient numbers to replace them. Pragmatists see proper immigration reform as a partial answer. Yet, like the Soviet Union in the mid-1980's, we are so caught up in political correctness, lawsuits and threats of some sort of discrimination that we are essentially "bound and gagged."
For those who were around during the Reagan years, you remember that we were surging ahead with computers and the "Strategic Defense Initiative," AKA "Star Wars." Meanwhile, the Soviets were enmeshed in endless Communist prohibitions. The Reagan led America left them in the dust. In 1989 the U.S.S.R. died quietly.
Perhaps we have forgotten the eighties. If so, it's time for a refresher course. Thirty years ago, Walter Mondale and friends were touting that they would "draw the line" on placing defense missles "into the heavens."
When the Reagan tax cuts were introduced, it was Mondale who protested, "in the name of decency." Their alternative was "higher taxes" for the rich. The intrepretation of "rich" amounted to anyone making more than $20,000 per year(1984 money).
They talked about "social justice." This translated to a federal government that sought greater involvement in our everyday lives. Out-of-touch Federal Judges were handing down mandates that generally equated to needless and unjustified spending for state and local governments.
It appears that we have gone full circle.
Reagan left office 25 years ago. Today's 40-year-old wasn't likely engrossed in civics at age 15. Most can't remember the Soviet Union or the Cold War. What some do remember, vaguely, is 1992. That was the year that Bill Clinton came into office. It was the period when we began to hear that increasingly utilized term: "Political Correctness."
Check history! "Political Correctness" is derived from Marxism. Somehow, it became "uncool" to criticize anything or anybody who might be at odds with the status quot. During Clinton's tenure, America benefited greatly from the demise of the Soviet Union. Money originally ticketed for defense became available for other needs.
Clinton and company made a bid for Universal Health Care in 1993. Remember "Hillary Care?" It crashed and burned, leading to a 1994 Republican takeover in the House and Senate. As was his practice, Clinton moderated. Some meaningful legislation did pass.
Was Bill Clinton actually a moderate?
A better word was "pragmatist." He assessed the landscape and elected to play "small ball,"gaining minor victories while securing his legacy.
Those who lived in Arkansas at the time of his Governorship contended that Bill was "right" of his wife. Hillary was always seen as the "liberal outsider" who adversely influenced her husband. Yet, those who knew Bill Clinton described his as "Walter Mondale with an Arkansas drawl." It came as no surprise when he aggressively stumped for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election bid.
Which leads us back to our "full circle."
We may have "1980 in 2016." Current polls are not predicting it. But, it is early. A lot could happen over the next 30 months! Including, the introduction of legislation that would "bag" all concerns in one brilliant stroke of "politically incorrectness."
Obamacare could ultimately lead to nullification. The more states that exercise nullification, the more that will consider it. Once it starts, other federal laws and mandates will come under the microscope! In the end, "opt out" might become a watch phrase!
This is a dangerous path for the country. Yet it is constititional. So is a states right to dissolve it's relationship with the union. Some states may be quietly contemplating this development. Has anyone noticed Texas $1,000,000 advertising expenditure in the hope of luring New York and Connecticut based companies to move their operations to the Lone Star state?
Sound crazy? Don't bet the the ranch on it! There are a lot of angry people in the country. Very angry people! As in, mad enough to take up a gun and look for targets.
Obamacare represents one-sixth of the economy. More than half of the country doesn't want it. Yet the proponents are hell bent on cramming it down the rest of the countries throat! Bad idea!
Even worse is the push to naturalize every possible "non-incomed" person, promising them boonies(including medical cards) in exchange for support. Who would have believed such arrogance! Yet, it is upon us. The bet is Americans will sitting back and do nothing, allowing those with "no skin" in the game to call the shots.
What Senator Rubio supports is the first step toward arresting this momentum. If we can have a literacy test for a Green Card, we can have a literacy test for a Voter I.D. Card. And this is the predicted path that will ultimately lead to a paradigm shift in America.
Can it happen? Yes it can! Fed up Americans will happily consent to this change in the suffrage standard. Even those "on the fence" will gladly acquiesce when introduced to an apocalyptic alternative that promises war, bloodshed and worse.
Amazingly, what is front of us is not new! The Mondale people were talking these same ideas in the seventies and later the eighties. True, many who were around then are not here now. The hope is that the "new blood" can re-introduced to these same tired arguments.
Rubio's position is new and somewhat startling. He is positioning assimilation as the gate keeper to citizenship. English as the official language will soon follow. The majority of America is with the Florida Senator. When the last piece of the puzzle, literacy, becomes part of the mix, the nation will then move toward it pivotal choice:
At that juncture, the debate will be over.
Enter the "E" Amendment.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
The "Heart and Soul" of the "E" Amendment
Yes, the proposed "E" Amendment would be easy enough to "demagogue." The mere thought of a "literacy test" evokes painful memories of the 1960's civil rights movement. Yet, when the full proposal is laid out and properly explained, a new revelation begins to take shape.
Marty G., an agent from a New York based, E-Publisher recently shared his thoughts on "E" is for English. In a three-way meeting with myself and my book distributor, Marty professed to be a "liberal Democrat." He admitted support for all left wing causes, ranging from abortion rights, same sex marriage, universal health care and a progressive tax system. But he also supported universal English literacy in America.
"I am a Progressive," Marty lauded. "but that doesn't make me a Communist. Your book identifies a block of Americans, perhaps 15, maybe even 20% who are functionally illiterate in English. That's scary!
"What's even more disconcerting," Marty admitted, "is that there are a small number of "power brokers" who want to keep it that way! Because, as you pointed out, illiterate people are easier to control."
When Cary J., the distributor's representitive questioned "IF" nationwide support would be possible for the "E" Amendment, Marty mused. "I grew up in Boston and have lived in both Providence and Montpelier. I can tell you now, those states would ratify the "E" Amendment."
Really?
Cary J. is a Chicago native. Calling herself a "Bill Clinton Democrat," her original observation of the book described it as a "sweet spot" between Republican Establishment and Tea party. Marty was opening up a new dimension.
"Face it," Marty explained, "this book is totally non-partisan. But, it is somewhat revolutionary." He went on to note that the public school mandate of six years of a second language, beginning in third grade, would have "heavy support" in the East. So would the teaching of Transformational Grammar.
When I pointed out Dr. Tomas Mauricio's(former University of Kentucky Associate Professor of Liberal Arts) prediction that "half the children would take Spanish, the other half electing a different language," Marty agreed.
"There would be more available Spanish teachers. Besides, 16% of the country has Spanish roots. The thought of their children learning Spanish history, geography and culture, not to mention proper "Castilian" Spanish, as opposed to "back alley "Spanglish" would have these parents aboard! Believe me! They are as focused on assimilation as my Jewish ancestors from Poland were in the 1890's!
"The "slow assent" Jeff described would be just that: a gradual immersion into the language. Third graders would start with "comic books" and word games. In the fifth grade, they would be studying geography and history of those countries that used the language.
"By the time that they were in the eighth grade, they would be reading classics like "Don Quixote.(assuming they had elected Spanish as their second language)." The summer following their Freshmen year, there would be field trips taken to those countries using their selected language."
"What does this have to do with Transformational Grammar?" Cary wanted to know. "As a matter of fact, what is Transformational Grammar?"
At that juncture, I explained that all languages were the same in deep structure. Transformational Grammar is the tranference of language from surface structure to deep structure. The goal is to teach children "how to think."
After agreeing that it all "sounded good," Cary had another question. " Why do we need to make people take a fourth grade English proficiency test to qualify for a voter I.D. card? What does this have to do with teaching six years of a second language in the public schools."
Marty had a ready answer. "Children are our future. We must make them better than we were. Learning a second language will strengthen their use of English.
"But, English is the language that most favor. If we do not "raise the bar," and force people to learn it, they won't! If we make "English only" the law, those resisting will be forced to live by it.
"People are lazy, let's face it!" Marty concluded. "We have made it possible for them not to assimilate!"
Both Marty and Cary were especially impressed with the potential savings that would come from "English only" official use, ranging from voting ballots, drivers license testing, government signage and official documents. Not to mention the immigration plan that was introduced in the book.
"There have been a lot of immigration ideas floating around." Marty reminded. "None have suggested that "passage of a 10th grade English proficiency exam," be part of the mix! But it accomplishes a lot of what the Dream Act would do. At the same time, it clarifies the 14th amendments reference to qualification. Not to mention defining entitlement eligibility."
Marty left convinced that "gaining two-thirds majorities" in both House and Senate would be "easily achievable."
When asked to predict Barack Obama's reaction to the legislation, Marty laughed, "He's a front man. Most of those behind him would not want to lose their "Sheeple." Him personally? I agree with that Chicago lawyer. I think that he would buy it!"
In essence, the "heart and soul" of the proposed "E" Amendment is "accelerated assimulation" through acceptance of English as the official language. But the goal is not for mere ceremonial use! We want our people to be the "masters" of the language, with our children taking the lead.
We also want a society that is culturally deeper. A multi-linguel population will make us stronger as a nation. We need to use this "strand" that binds us as a "unifier." Those opposing English as the official language seek to weaken us. Their aim is a global society where we are mere spoke in the wheel. Our thrust is to maintain American exceptionalism. To achieve this goal, we must be 100% literate in one language.
87% of the country says that language should be English.
Marty G., an agent from a New York based, E-Publisher recently shared his thoughts on "E" is for English. In a three-way meeting with myself and my book distributor, Marty professed to be a "liberal Democrat." He admitted support for all left wing causes, ranging from abortion rights, same sex marriage, universal health care and a progressive tax system. But he also supported universal English literacy in America.
"I am a Progressive," Marty lauded. "but that doesn't make me a Communist. Your book identifies a block of Americans, perhaps 15, maybe even 20% who are functionally illiterate in English. That's scary!
"What's even more disconcerting," Marty admitted, "is that there are a small number of "power brokers" who want to keep it that way! Because, as you pointed out, illiterate people are easier to control."
When Cary J., the distributor's representitive questioned "IF" nationwide support would be possible for the "E" Amendment, Marty mused. "I grew up in Boston and have lived in both Providence and Montpelier. I can tell you now, those states would ratify the "E" Amendment."
Really?
Cary J. is a Chicago native. Calling herself a "Bill Clinton Democrat," her original observation of the book described it as a "sweet spot" between Republican Establishment and Tea party. Marty was opening up a new dimension.
"Face it," Marty explained, "this book is totally non-partisan. But, it is somewhat revolutionary." He went on to note that the public school mandate of six years of a second language, beginning in third grade, would have "heavy support" in the East. So would the teaching of Transformational Grammar.
When I pointed out Dr. Tomas Mauricio's(former University of Kentucky Associate Professor of Liberal Arts) prediction that "half the children would take Spanish, the other half electing a different language," Marty agreed.
"There would be more available Spanish teachers. Besides, 16% of the country has Spanish roots. The thought of their children learning Spanish history, geography and culture, not to mention proper "Castilian" Spanish, as opposed to "back alley "Spanglish" would have these parents aboard! Believe me! They are as focused on assimilation as my Jewish ancestors from Poland were in the 1890's!
"The "slow assent" Jeff described would be just that: a gradual immersion into the language. Third graders would start with "comic books" and word games. In the fifth grade, they would be studying geography and history of those countries that used the language.
"By the time that they were in the eighth grade, they would be reading classics like "Don Quixote.(assuming they had elected Spanish as their second language)." The summer following their Freshmen year, there would be field trips taken to those countries using their selected language."
"What does this have to do with Transformational Grammar?" Cary wanted to know. "As a matter of fact, what is Transformational Grammar?"
At that juncture, I explained that all languages were the same in deep structure. Transformational Grammar is the tranference of language from surface structure to deep structure. The goal is to teach children "how to think."
After agreeing that it all "sounded good," Cary had another question. " Why do we need to make people take a fourth grade English proficiency test to qualify for a voter I.D. card? What does this have to do with teaching six years of a second language in the public schools."
Marty had a ready answer. "Children are our future. We must make them better than we were. Learning a second language will strengthen their use of English.
"But, English is the language that most favor. If we do not "raise the bar," and force people to learn it, they won't! If we make "English only" the law, those resisting will be forced to live by it.
"People are lazy, let's face it!" Marty concluded. "We have made it possible for them not to assimilate!"
Both Marty and Cary were especially impressed with the potential savings that would come from "English only" official use, ranging from voting ballots, drivers license testing, government signage and official documents. Not to mention the immigration plan that was introduced in the book.
"There have been a lot of immigration ideas floating around." Marty reminded. "None have suggested that "passage of a 10th grade English proficiency exam," be part of the mix! But it accomplishes a lot of what the Dream Act would do. At the same time, it clarifies the 14th amendments reference to qualification. Not to mention defining entitlement eligibility."
Marty left convinced that "gaining two-thirds majorities" in both House and Senate would be "easily achievable."
When asked to predict Barack Obama's reaction to the legislation, Marty laughed, "He's a front man. Most of those behind him would not want to lose their "Sheeple." Him personally? I agree with that Chicago lawyer. I think that he would buy it!"
In essence, the "heart and soul" of the proposed "E" Amendment is "accelerated assimulation" through acceptance of English as the official language. But the goal is not for mere ceremonial use! We want our people to be the "masters" of the language, with our children taking the lead.
We also want a society that is culturally deeper. A multi-linguel population will make us stronger as a nation. We need to use this "strand" that binds us as a "unifier." Those opposing English as the official language seek to weaken us. Their aim is a global society where we are mere spoke in the wheel. Our thrust is to maintain American exceptionalism. To achieve this goal, we must be 100% literate in one language.
87% of the country says that language should be English.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)