Yeah, it has been a while since I last posted anything.
The reality is that this conservative was driven away from the keyboard because of the prospect of seeing the 2016 election a race with Republican presumptive nominee, Donald J. Trump, and the more than likely Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton.
I am one of those 60% plus Americans that is not happy with my party, the Republican party, choice for president. I certainly will not vote for Mrs. Clinton.
So I have been mulling where does my vote go this election.
It will not go to Mr. Trump no matter how conservative he tries to sound.
As noted, it will not go to Mrs. Clinton unless she somehow totally changes in almost every way and essentially becomes a Republican.
In the aftermath of Mr. Trump becoming the presumptive GOP nominee, my first thought is that I will write in a past candidate in November. But unless he or she were to make a case for such a candidacy, it will be a wasted vote.
My current position is that if I cast a vote for president at all it will be the newly-minted Libertarian candidate, former New Mexico Republican governor, Gary Johnson.
But I am still mulling over whether or not I will even participate in the presidential aspect of voting. I mean, I will still vote for the GOP for congress, local contests and the like. After all, the local elections are in many ways more important that the presidency. At least in a federal republic that is the United States, that is how it should be.
One thing is that I live in the now deep-Blue state of California. We have a race for senate this year as Sen. Barbara Ma'am Boxer is finally leaving the senate stage.
But California has found a way to possibly have the race to replace Sen. Ma'am Boxer be between Democrats only in both the primary and general election.
You see, the once Golden State now has a system of voting that, other than the presidency, in the primary it is the top two that go on to the general election. No matter what political party. Thus the race seems to be between the current Democrat attorney general, Kamala Harris, and Democrat congressman, Loretta Sanchez. Yes, there are Republicans running. But the fact is the only commercials I see are for Miss Harris and Mrs. Sanchez. I will vote for Republican Tom Del Beccarro in the primary hoping that he makes the general election. If not, and no Republican makes the general, I will be a disenfranchised voter and probably skip the senate race as well as the presidential race.
This is the dilemma for conservatives particularly in a state like California.
We may be skipping both the presidential and senate race in November. Because many of us believe that Mr. Trump is not particularly conservative. And why would we vote for a Democrat in a senate race?
Thus it made me think what is the point about writing about politics?
Then I realized that this blog is not just about politics but what passes for culture and many other current events.
And while I may rarely write about the presidential race, there is so much that is worth writing about.
That is what you will get from here on out.
This conservative is back.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
Is This Good Stewardship?!
I will just say that this is a perplexing tale of politics and religion that make me as the headline question.
According to this article, the former Florida governor and GOP presidential candidate, John Ellis Jeb! Bush, charged St. Martin's Episcopal church $50,000 for a speech a year ago September and it was on . . .stewardship.
This is what a church does to encourage people to give money and or more money?!
Let me write this.
If my church spent that kind of money to encourage people to give more money to pay for the functions of the church and it's outreach ministries, we would probably recall our vestry, the governing board, and ask for our rector and or priest-in-charge to be removed.
You have to understand that St. Martin's Episcopal Church, Houston, is the largest and one of the wealthiest churches in The Episcopal Church. It has some of the cream of the crop of the Houston establishment as members including former President George H. W. Bush and his wife, Barbara. And Mr. Bush's top long-time crony, James A. Baker. That is just the political establishment. You get the picture that this is high-end folks.
There is no doubt in my mind that this church could have found something more worthy than lining the pockets of the then future Republican presidential candidate.
I do agree that it takes money to make money, but giving one's time, talent and or money for one's church is not the same thing.
People will do the above if they believe in what the church has done, is doing and will be doing in the future. Yes, there needs to be encouragement, but to spend $50,000 to encourage people to give more to a church seems strange. And to giving to a son of a particular parish as is Jeb! Bush just has cheese written all over it.
I have been to many a stewardship dinner in my 23+ years at my Episcopal church and the most exciting, if one can say that, was held at a private country club. Probably paid for by the member and used as a tax write off as a charitable contribution. Not a give me $50,000 and I might give some of it back.
The Episcopal Church is not a "tithing" church in the sense that everyone is expected to give a tenth of their income, based on the Holy Bible, but more what they can and when they can not, use one's time and or talent in such a way that can be beneficial to the particular parish. Many a communicant/congregant do give a tenth of their salary to the church. Some more, some less and some can't give money at all.
The best way of encouragement I have found are the personal stories of those that have been touched in a positive way by the church's ministries. It is knowing that which has made us dig deep to pledge more than we might have in the past.
But to be honest, Mrs. RVFTLC and I would really have a hard time with a famous person speaking at a stewardship dinner and making off with a speaking fee as if this was just another notch of speaking fees. Which I think in any other setting is cool. If any group and or organization wants to pay a fixed fee for any famous person to speak, mazeltov.
But the cheese factor in which Jeb! Bush charges a HIGHER speaking fee from a church is, well disgusting.
That, to me, is not good stewardship. Even if the church can afford it.
This is but one more reason I do not find Jeb! Bush an attractive candidate for president.
H/T: Jeff Bradshaw.
According to this article, the former Florida governor and GOP presidential candidate, John Ellis Jeb! Bush, charged St. Martin's Episcopal church $50,000 for a speech a year ago September and it was on . . .stewardship.
This is what a church does to encourage people to give money and or more money?!
Let me write this.
If my church spent that kind of money to encourage people to give more money to pay for the functions of the church and it's outreach ministries, we would probably recall our vestry, the governing board, and ask for our rector and or priest-in-charge to be removed.
You have to understand that St. Martin's Episcopal Church, Houston, is the largest and one of the wealthiest churches in The Episcopal Church. It has some of the cream of the crop of the Houston establishment as members including former President George H. W. Bush and his wife, Barbara. And Mr. Bush's top long-time crony, James A. Baker. That is just the political establishment. You get the picture that this is high-end folks.
There is no doubt in my mind that this church could have found something more worthy than lining the pockets of the then future Republican presidential candidate.
I do agree that it takes money to make money, but giving one's time, talent and or money for one's church is not the same thing.
People will do the above if they believe in what the church has done, is doing and will be doing in the future. Yes, there needs to be encouragement, but to spend $50,000 to encourage people to give more to a church seems strange. And to giving to a son of a particular parish as is Jeb! Bush just has cheese written all over it.
I have been to many a stewardship dinner in my 23+ years at my Episcopal church and the most exciting, if one can say that, was held at a private country club. Probably paid for by the member and used as a tax write off as a charitable contribution. Not a give me $50,000 and I might give some of it back.
The Episcopal Church is not a "tithing" church in the sense that everyone is expected to give a tenth of their income, based on the Holy Bible, but more what they can and when they can not, use one's time and or talent in such a way that can be beneficial to the particular parish. Many a communicant/congregant do give a tenth of their salary to the church. Some more, some less and some can't give money at all.
The best way of encouragement I have found are the personal stories of those that have been touched in a positive way by the church's ministries. It is knowing that which has made us dig deep to pledge more than we might have in the past.
But to be honest, Mrs. RVFTLC and I would really have a hard time with a famous person speaking at a stewardship dinner and making off with a speaking fee as if this was just another notch of speaking fees. Which I think in any other setting is cool. If any group and or organization wants to pay a fixed fee for any famous person to speak, mazeltov.
But the cheese factor in which Jeb! Bush charges a HIGHER speaking fee from a church is, well disgusting.
That, to me, is not good stewardship. Even if the church can afford it.
This is but one more reason I do not find Jeb! Bush an attractive candidate for president.
H/T: Jeff Bradshaw.
Friday, October 02, 2015
The Politics Of Mass Murders
It is not very often that you will read it on this blog, but for once Donald J. Trump is right about something.
And surprisingly, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is wrong.
Yesterday another mass murder took place and this time it was at a community college in Southwestern Oregon that took the lives of 10 people and injured another seven. It was an act of madness as is seemingly all of these mass killings have been. They always are.
My friend and fellow blogger, Mr. Social Extinction, juxtaposed the reaction of the current GOP front-runner for president, the Donald, and that of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
It appears that, of course, the Donald is cold and almost callous when you just read what is below:
"You're going to have these things happen and it's a horrible thing to behold, horrible. It's not politically correct to say that, but you're going to have that will be for the next million years, there's going to be difficulty and people are going to slip through the cracks. what are you going to do, institutionalize everybody?"
Good question since in almost all cases there is some kind of mental issue involved. And we will not completely know because this gunman, Chris Harper Mercer, was killed by police that arrived on the scene of the carnage. Of course there are many accounts on Mr. Mercer's life, but one thing is clear that there was some kind of issue. Mr. Mercer graduated from the Switzer Learning Center in 2010. It is a high school that specializes in youths with learning disabilities. It is a broad term, learning disabilities. But more will come out, that is certain. And to note, Mr. Mercer had multiple weapons that, at this writing, he passed all the background checks and appeared to purchase legally.
Which leads to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
We know that he is pissed off because the gloves came off in a news conference yesterday.
An aside.
Why do we have to hear from any president on such a situation before everything is known? Whoever the next president is, I sure as hell do not want hear that president go on the air to pontificate without ascertaining all the facts. Period.
Now back to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Why now, instead of just offering prayers and condolences, the Dear Leader, President Obama, said that we should just out and out politicize these events until there is "sensible" gun control laws.
Of course.
And now the Dear Leader, President Obama, claims that there is something "routine" about these reports. No, in fact these are still isolated incidents. That is why it is still big news.
But then the Dear Leader, President Obama, outright lied when he claimed that states and or localities that have strict gun laws have less violent crime. May I remind the president that his hometown of Chicago has some of the strictest gun restrictions and the highest murder, murder, rate at the hands of guns than many states with such laws as open-carry. And let me throw in a few cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and now even Los Angeles that the murder rate at the hands of a gun are up drastically.
So here is what our Dear Leader, President Obama, had to say about this matter:
"Somehow this has become routine. The reporting is routine, my response here at this podium ends up being routine. And what becomes routine is the response those who oppose any sort of gun control legislation."
Let me remind the readers here that the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats controlled the legislative (congress) and executive branches for the first two years of his presidency. And the senate was a veto-proof one at that. Hell, he could have done what he cited yesterday, the massive gun confiscation done in Australia after a mass shooting in 1996. And it was done under a conservative government there. Of course it would have been ruled unconstitutional under that pesky second amendment to the United States constitution. It reads in it's entirety:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I highlight people because it means law abiding citizens that could be called up in the case of war and or insurrection.
The American left hates this and intentionally blurs the plain meaning every chance that it gets. And here it is once again.
While the Donald often makes little if any sense and has a sketchy record on gun control, his statement made perfect sense. All the laws other than outright confiscation of all firearms might have stopped this. But reality is that it probably would not have done a thing.
Thus, mass murders will constantly be a source of great division for many Americans. But it would behoove Americans to have a sane, tempered approach rather than a knee-jerk We can solve the problem if only.
And surprisingly, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is wrong.
Yesterday another mass murder took place and this time it was at a community college in Southwestern Oregon that took the lives of 10 people and injured another seven. It was an act of madness as is seemingly all of these mass killings have been. They always are.
My friend and fellow blogger, Mr. Social Extinction, juxtaposed the reaction of the current GOP front-runner for president, the Donald, and that of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
It appears that, of course, the Donald is cold and almost callous when you just read what is below:
"You're going to have these things happen and it's a horrible thing to behold, horrible. It's not politically correct to say that, but you're going to have that will be for the next million years, there's going to be difficulty and people are going to slip through the cracks. what are you going to do, institutionalize everybody?"
Good question since in almost all cases there is some kind of mental issue involved. And we will not completely know because this gunman, Chris Harper Mercer, was killed by police that arrived on the scene of the carnage. Of course there are many accounts on Mr. Mercer's life, but one thing is clear that there was some kind of issue. Mr. Mercer graduated from the Switzer Learning Center in 2010. It is a high school that specializes in youths with learning disabilities. It is a broad term, learning disabilities. But more will come out, that is certain. And to note, Mr. Mercer had multiple weapons that, at this writing, he passed all the background checks and appeared to purchase legally.
Which leads to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
We know that he is pissed off because the gloves came off in a news conference yesterday.
An aside.
Why do we have to hear from any president on such a situation before everything is known? Whoever the next president is, I sure as hell do not want hear that president go on the air to pontificate without ascertaining all the facts. Period.
Now back to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Why now, instead of just offering prayers and condolences, the Dear Leader, President Obama, said that we should just out and out politicize these events until there is "sensible" gun control laws.
Of course.
And now the Dear Leader, President Obama, claims that there is something "routine" about these reports. No, in fact these are still isolated incidents. That is why it is still big news.
But then the Dear Leader, President Obama, outright lied when he claimed that states and or localities that have strict gun laws have less violent crime. May I remind the president that his hometown of Chicago has some of the strictest gun restrictions and the highest murder, murder, rate at the hands of guns than many states with such laws as open-carry. And let me throw in a few cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and now even Los Angeles that the murder rate at the hands of a gun are up drastically.
So here is what our Dear Leader, President Obama, had to say about this matter:
"Somehow this has become routine. The reporting is routine, my response here at this podium ends up being routine. And what becomes routine is the response those who oppose any sort of gun control legislation."
Let me remind the readers here that the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats controlled the legislative (congress) and executive branches for the first two years of his presidency. And the senate was a veto-proof one at that. Hell, he could have done what he cited yesterday, the massive gun confiscation done in Australia after a mass shooting in 1996. And it was done under a conservative government there. Of course it would have been ruled unconstitutional under that pesky second amendment to the United States constitution. It reads in it's entirety:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I highlight people because it means law abiding citizens that could be called up in the case of war and or insurrection.
The American left hates this and intentionally blurs the plain meaning every chance that it gets. And here it is once again.
While the Donald often makes little if any sense and has a sketchy record on gun control, his statement made perfect sense. All the laws other than outright confiscation of all firearms might have stopped this. But reality is that it probably would not have done a thing.
Thus, mass murders will constantly be a source of great division for many Americans. But it would behoove Americans to have a sane, tempered approach rather than a knee-jerk We can solve the problem if only.
Friday, May 01, 2015
Six Officers Indicted In Baltimore Over Freddie Gray's Death
BREAKING NEWS:
Six Baltimore city police officers have been charged in the death of Freddie Gray, who was arrested on April 12, 2015 and died a week later. Here are the names of the police officers charged and the charges. The race of the officers was not provided:
Officer Caesar Goodson Jr., 45, was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, second-degree assault, two vehicular manslaughter charges and misconduct in office.
Officer William Porter, 25, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Lt. Brian Rice, 41, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Sgt. Alicia White, 30, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Officer Edward Nero, 29, was charged with second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Officer Garrett Miller, 26, was charged with second-degree assault, misconduct in office and false imprisonment.
Six Baltimore city police officers have been charged in the death of Freddie Gray, who was arrested on April 12, 2015 and died a week later. Here are the names of the police officers charged and the charges. The race of the officers was not provided:
Officer Caesar Goodson Jr., 45, was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, second-degree assault, two vehicular manslaughter charges and misconduct in office.
Officer William Porter, 25, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Lt. Brian Rice, 41, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Sgt. Alicia White, 30, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Officer Edward Nero, 29, was charged with second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Officer Garrett Miller, 26, was charged with second-degree assault, misconduct in office and false imprisonment.
Monday, March 30, 2015
You Know The Real Story Of The Indiana Religious Freedom Law? Mike Pence
It's an interesting aspect that the discussion going all over the internets over the passage and subsequent signing of Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act has not even brought up one aspect that I absolutely believe is the real issue here.
The real issue is the governor who signed the legislation, Mike Pence.
Now this post is not going to delve into the merits of the law or not. I will provide this link by a gay conservative in favor of same-sex marriage to give a case for the legislation being OK. But there is the angst by the other side. And this link gives one of the reasons they do not like this legislation.
Now why is Gov. Pence the real story here?
Because he has expressed some interest in running for president. If that were to pass, the Republican governor would be the 318th non-announced potential Republican candidate for president.
Let's look at a fact.
Now 20 states and the federal government have some kind of RFRA on their books. The law is designed to allow religious groups to use religion as a legitimate defense if they break the law in any way.
In essence it is to protect the American Indians who use peyote, which is illegal, as part of their religious ceremonies. It protects Christian Scientists, who do not believe in modern medicine, when their belief is challenged in court. In the case of CS', it is usually when a child's life is in danger and when modern medicine has an overwhelming chance to help lead to a full recovery. What about Jehovah's Witnesses who do not believe in blood transfusions? Sikh men and or teen boys that, as a part of their faith, wear a dagger on their person.?
In other words, this is very broad based.
However, suddenly the gay left has realized, OMG, that Indiana has jumped on board with this clarification and protection for Christians that have a business, such as bakeries and or wedding photographers, who chose to not provide the service to those same-sex couples due to their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
The rub is that it really just provides a defense and a day in court for those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The same thing applies to the groups mentioned in the paragraph before that one.
What it does not do is give people a right to deny service based on flimsy belief. But that belief must be real and provable.
It is important to give background on this to understand the issue at hand.
So, when Gov. Pence was running for governor, this is one of the things that he ran on. That he supported the legislation and would sign it. Keep in mind that again, there are 19 other states that have similar legislation. There was not this kind of backlash against all the other states save for Arizona. In that state, under a ton of pressure from the usual suspects, then Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill. Here is a map to see exactly what states have similar laws.
The dark green state have RFRAs. Interesting that there are several pretty blue states as part of the 19 other states. Connecticut, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Actually, the accompanying story is worth a read.
Back to point.
There was not one bit of a secret that Gov. Pence was for this and signed it.
And the left, especially the gay-friendly left went on an unbelievable screed as if this just happened out of nowhere.
It didn't.
But what makes the reaction interesting is how the venom is out for Gov. Pence.
Since he became governor, there has not been much to nail him on that could stick in the world of the left. Gov. Pence served in congress and gave up a sure seat for as long as he wanted it to run for and win the governor's seat in Indiana. He is pretty popular in his state. It is this reason that Gov. Pence has been on a fair number of people's lists of serious GOP presidential candidates. Now it's not like there has been a Pence for Prez bandwagon bursting at the seems. Gov. Pence is but one name in a large mix. But what would happen if he caught on and actually decided to run for president?
Nothing like a little bit of making Gov. Pence being Bull Conner and making Indiana the Alabama of the Upper Midwest in regard to businesses raging to deny services to gays, lesbians and all others in between.
One of the reasons the opponents have to use against the law is the fact that Indiana as a state does not have anti-discrimination laws. Yes, localities do, but not the whole state. Thus all those anti-gay bigots can whip out their signs that they don't want to serve gays, lesbians and all in between. Maybe throw in other liberals and Godless commies too.
Judging by the hysteria of many big businesses, it appears that there is not a slew of bigoted sexists using religion to deny a meal to anyone.
In 2015 America, does anyone really believe that a major company would use the RFRA to legally discriminate based on religion? Of course people will disagree on what constitutes discrimination. The point of the legislation is that those that have a genuine, deeply held religious belief have the right to defend themselves if they do deny a very specific service. As Christian Scientists do. As Jehovah's Witness' do. As Sikhs do. As American Indian religions do.
But what is really at play is whether or not Gov. Pence wants to run for president. If he does, the left is prepared to hang this one bill he signed as proof positive he is not fit to run for let alone be president. It would be something for Gov. Pence to consider in running for the presidency. And while he made a somewhat weak case for the bill on the Sunday political gab-fests, he has written this article to appear in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal (sorry there is a pay-wall, but excerpts appear here at the Pence Facebook page). I think that it presents the bill as it is supposed to be and is better than his appearances on national television on Sunday.
The moral is that if there is any chance of a solid conservative thinking about running for president, he better not tangle with the left unprepared. Mike Pence, not the law itself, is the real issue no matter what you will read and or hear.
The real issue is the governor who signed the legislation, Mike Pence.
Now this post is not going to delve into the merits of the law or not. I will provide this link by a gay conservative in favor of same-sex marriage to give a case for the legislation being OK. But there is the angst by the other side. And this link gives one of the reasons they do not like this legislation.
Now why is Gov. Pence the real story here?
Because he has expressed some interest in running for president. If that were to pass, the Republican governor would be the 318th non-announced potential Republican candidate for president.
Let's look at a fact.
Now 20 states and the federal government have some kind of RFRA on their books. The law is designed to allow religious groups to use religion as a legitimate defense if they break the law in any way.
In essence it is to protect the American Indians who use peyote, which is illegal, as part of their religious ceremonies. It protects Christian Scientists, who do not believe in modern medicine, when their belief is challenged in court. In the case of CS', it is usually when a child's life is in danger and when modern medicine has an overwhelming chance to help lead to a full recovery. What about Jehovah's Witnesses who do not believe in blood transfusions? Sikh men and or teen boys that, as a part of their faith, wear a dagger on their person.?
In other words, this is very broad based.
However, suddenly the gay left has realized, OMG, that Indiana has jumped on board with this clarification and protection for Christians that have a business, such as bakeries and or wedding photographers, who chose to not provide the service to those same-sex couples due to their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
The rub is that it really just provides a defense and a day in court for those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The same thing applies to the groups mentioned in the paragraph before that one.
What it does not do is give people a right to deny service based on flimsy belief. But that belief must be real and provable.
It is important to give background on this to understand the issue at hand.
So, when Gov. Pence was running for governor, this is one of the things that he ran on. That he supported the legislation and would sign it. Keep in mind that again, there are 19 other states that have similar legislation. There was not this kind of backlash against all the other states save for Arizona. In that state, under a ton of pressure from the usual suspects, then Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill. Here is a map to see exactly what states have similar laws.
The dark green state have RFRAs. Interesting that there are several pretty blue states as part of the 19 other states. Connecticut, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Actually, the accompanying story is worth a read.
Back to point.
There was not one bit of a secret that Gov. Pence was for this and signed it.
And the left, especially the gay-friendly left went on an unbelievable screed as if this just happened out of nowhere.
It didn't.
But what makes the reaction interesting is how the venom is out for Gov. Pence.
Since he became governor, there has not been much to nail him on that could stick in the world of the left. Gov. Pence served in congress and gave up a sure seat for as long as he wanted it to run for and win the governor's seat in Indiana. He is pretty popular in his state. It is this reason that Gov. Pence has been on a fair number of people's lists of serious GOP presidential candidates. Now it's not like there has been a Pence for Prez bandwagon bursting at the seems. Gov. Pence is but one name in a large mix. But what would happen if he caught on and actually decided to run for president?
Nothing like a little bit of making Gov. Pence being Bull Conner and making Indiana the Alabama of the Upper Midwest in regard to businesses raging to deny services to gays, lesbians and all others in between.
One of the reasons the opponents have to use against the law is the fact that Indiana as a state does not have anti-discrimination laws. Yes, localities do, but not the whole state. Thus all those anti-gay bigots can whip out their signs that they don't want to serve gays, lesbians and all in between. Maybe throw in other liberals and Godless commies too.
Judging by the hysteria of many big businesses, it appears that there is not a slew of bigoted sexists using religion to deny a meal to anyone.
In 2015 America, does anyone really believe that a major company would use the RFRA to legally discriminate based on religion? Of course people will disagree on what constitutes discrimination. The point of the legislation is that those that have a genuine, deeply held religious belief have the right to defend themselves if they do deny a very specific service. As Christian Scientists do. As Jehovah's Witness' do. As Sikhs do. As American Indian religions do.
But what is really at play is whether or not Gov. Pence wants to run for president. If he does, the left is prepared to hang this one bill he signed as proof positive he is not fit to run for let alone be president. It would be something for Gov. Pence to consider in running for the presidency. And while he made a somewhat weak case for the bill on the Sunday political gab-fests, he has written this article to appear in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal (sorry there is a pay-wall, but excerpts appear here at the Pence Facebook page). I think that it presents the bill as it is supposed to be and is better than his appearances on national television on Sunday.
The moral is that if there is any chance of a solid conservative thinking about running for president, he better not tangle with the left unprepared. Mike Pence, not the law itself, is the real issue no matter what you will read and or hear.
Thursday, January 08, 2015
How Not To Unseat A Speaker Of The House
Let's face it.
I am not a fan of Rep. John Boehner (R-Oh) as speaker of the house. I think that he way too often seems willing to accommodate the Democrats and the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
But I do have to admire the fact that he is a survivor and this past Tuesday survived an insurrection and was elected speaker for a third term.
While Mr. Boehner had a victory on Tuesday, it was illuminating on why conservatives at times can't be taken seriously.
The die was essentially cast shortly after the November midterm elections when the Republican house leadership were reelected with not one bit of opposition.
One of those that was expected to join the insurrection, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), ended up voting for Mr. Boehner holding his nose. In this press release, Mr. Mulvaney gives a reasonable explanation as to why he ended up voting for Mr. Boehner. And he points out that before the die was cast in November, someone should have ran against Mr. Boehner and Republicans could have had a secret ballot vote.
And what Mr. Mulvaney did not articulate on is that those opposed to Mr. Boehner could have rallied around one candidate. One solid conservative against the establishmentarian. And Tuesday's vote may have turned out very differently.
But, alas, we conservatives did not do any of that and it was a production of the conservative Keystone Kops.
First, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a likable fellow and solid conservative, announced that he would throw his hat in the ring.
Where was he in November? Did he oppose Mr. Boehner for the speaker ship then?
Then an unknown just elected to a second term house member, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) decided, hey, I'll throw my hat in the ring.
I will ask Mr. Yoho the same couple of questions that I have for Mr. Gohmert.
Then, out of nowhere came Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) and he ended up getting the most votes.
Same two questions for Mr. Webster.
But how did Mr. Webster come out of nowhere? The absolute least conservative of the three that announced got the most votes at 13.
The fact is that all it would have taken was for 29 votes to force a second ballot and then all hell could have broken loose.
It's not me making that point but California Rep. Tom McClintock who knows how leadership elections sometimes turn into unbelievable fiascoes.
Mr. McClintock was a member of the state assembly after the 1994 midterm elections in which the GOP actually became the majority party in the state assembly.
Not to go into the history of how a very close Republican majority, only one vote, led to several months of jockeying that did end up with a Republican speaker of the the Assembly. But these three names, Doris Allen, Brian Setencich and Curt Pringle were all players in the drama. Oh, we can't forget the puppet master of this problem, Willie Brown.
Would it have been better to end up with something like a co-speaker ship?! We don't know and thank goodness we don't have to find out.
And if anyone calls Mr. McClintock a RINO* or a weakling or in with leadership, they are out of their collective skulls.
Again, had conservatives thought this through, they should have gotten together before this came up in November. They knew that a vote would take place right after the election for continuity reasons in dealing with the lame-duck session of congress. Had they done that, I absolutely believe that they had a chance to find a solid conservative that could be acceptable to establishmentarians and Tea Party types alike and all in between.
Now some think a lot of this angst was fueled by conservative talk radio types. I do not think that they fueled it because many were making the same case in November that there was no backbone to challenge Mr. Boehner and the leadership at any level. All were reelected by acclimation. There were enough that thought to challenge Mr. Boehner publicly. And while it provided high drama, the sad fact is that it was a foregone conclusion.
The key is to have challenged right away. Even not having the votes then did put Mr. Boehner on notice that if he does not show some backbone, he would be challenged. And by the time this past Tuesday came, a strong candidate may have emerged and Mr. Boehner might have actually lost.
Conservatives need to know how to play the long game. By that it is to build up strength and to wisely pick and choose the hill to die on. Otherwise, as I noted, those that we like and respect start to look like the Keystone Kops and we forget why we oppose Mr. Boehner, et al, altogether.
There will be more battles ahead and the real test of Mr. Boehner as speaker will be how he keeps his caucus in line.
And conservatives can and will have another fight and many fights along the way. And hopefully, better leadership to be victorious.
*-Republican In Name Only.
I am not a fan of Rep. John Boehner (R-Oh) as speaker of the house. I think that he way too often seems willing to accommodate the Democrats and the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
But I do have to admire the fact that he is a survivor and this past Tuesday survived an insurrection and was elected speaker for a third term.
While Mr. Boehner had a victory on Tuesday, it was illuminating on why conservatives at times can't be taken seriously.
The die was essentially cast shortly after the November midterm elections when the Republican house leadership were reelected with not one bit of opposition.
One of those that was expected to join the insurrection, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), ended up voting for Mr. Boehner holding his nose. In this press release, Mr. Mulvaney gives a reasonable explanation as to why he ended up voting for Mr. Boehner. And he points out that before the die was cast in November, someone should have ran against Mr. Boehner and Republicans could have had a secret ballot vote.
And what Mr. Mulvaney did not articulate on is that those opposed to Mr. Boehner could have rallied around one candidate. One solid conservative against the establishmentarian. And Tuesday's vote may have turned out very differently.
But, alas, we conservatives did not do any of that and it was a production of the conservative Keystone Kops.
First, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a likable fellow and solid conservative, announced that he would throw his hat in the ring.
Where was he in November? Did he oppose Mr. Boehner for the speaker ship then?
Then an unknown just elected to a second term house member, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) decided, hey, I'll throw my hat in the ring.
I will ask Mr. Yoho the same couple of questions that I have for Mr. Gohmert.
Then, out of nowhere came Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) and he ended up getting the most votes.
Same two questions for Mr. Webster.
But how did Mr. Webster come out of nowhere? The absolute least conservative of the three that announced got the most votes at 13.
The fact is that all it would have taken was for 29 votes to force a second ballot and then all hell could have broken loose.
It's not me making that point but California Rep. Tom McClintock who knows how leadership elections sometimes turn into unbelievable fiascoes.
Mr. McClintock was a member of the state assembly after the 1994 midterm elections in which the GOP actually became the majority party in the state assembly.
Not to go into the history of how a very close Republican majority, only one vote, led to several months of jockeying that did end up with a Republican speaker of the the Assembly. But these three names, Doris Allen, Brian Setencich and Curt Pringle were all players in the drama. Oh, we can't forget the puppet master of this problem, Willie Brown.
Would it have been better to end up with something like a co-speaker ship?! We don't know and thank goodness we don't have to find out.
And if anyone calls Mr. McClintock a RINO* or a weakling or in with leadership, they are out of their collective skulls.
Again, had conservatives thought this through, they should have gotten together before this came up in November. They knew that a vote would take place right after the election for continuity reasons in dealing with the lame-duck session of congress. Had they done that, I absolutely believe that they had a chance to find a solid conservative that could be acceptable to establishmentarians and Tea Party types alike and all in between.
Now some think a lot of this angst was fueled by conservative talk radio types. I do not think that they fueled it because many were making the same case in November that there was no backbone to challenge Mr. Boehner and the leadership at any level. All were reelected by acclimation. There were enough that thought to challenge Mr. Boehner publicly. And while it provided high drama, the sad fact is that it was a foregone conclusion.
The key is to have challenged right away. Even not having the votes then did put Mr. Boehner on notice that if he does not show some backbone, he would be challenged. And by the time this past Tuesday came, a strong candidate may have emerged and Mr. Boehner might have actually lost.
Conservatives need to know how to play the long game. By that it is to build up strength and to wisely pick and choose the hill to die on. Otherwise, as I noted, those that we like and respect start to look like the Keystone Kops and we forget why we oppose Mr. Boehner, et al, altogether.
There will be more battles ahead and the real test of Mr. Boehner as speaker will be how he keeps his caucus in line.
And conservatives can and will have another fight and many fights along the way. And hopefully, better leadership to be victorious.
*-Republican In Name Only.
Saturday, January 03, 2015
First It's Jeb Bush, Now The Rev. Mike Huckabee In The Running For The '16 GOP Nod
Let's get this out of the way.
Whenever any candidate for president is either "exploring" or setting up an "exploratory committee", you can bet your bottom dollar that they are and will be running for president.
Late last year, former Florida governor and latest member of a certain family, Jeb (John Ellis Bush) Bush announced that he is setting up a presidential "exploratory committee" for a "possible" run for the 2016 Republican nomination for president.
Tonight on his Fox News Channel program, the former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate, the Rev. Mike Huckabee, announced that he is leaving the Fox News Channel as he too is "exploring" entering what should be a crowded GOP field for 2016.
As I have my issues with Mr. Bush, I have issues with the Rev. Huckabee.
My main issue with the Rev. Huckabee is that I believe, despite denials on both sides, that he teamed up with the eventual GOP 2008 presidential nominee, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain to deny the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, the GOP nod.
Also, the Rev. Huckabee did seem to love his tax hikes while governor of Arkansas.
But he sure can say this.
He led the way for the Republican party to take over the state of Arkansas. Granted much of the GOP gains in Arkansas occurred after he left office and was capped off by the GOP winning control of the state legislature and all elected offices in the state.
The Rev. Huckabee has a lot of supporters and he does talk up a cultural populism. But again, I am not sure that he can gain much beyond his base of primarily Evangelical Christian voters.
Having a weekly talk gig on Fox News Channel has helped him communicate a message beyond politics and he has had many guests on his show that are very political polar opposites such as singer Melissa Etheridge.
And the Rev. Huckabee had the highest-rated cable show for his time slot on Saturday night.
It is possible that because of that he could be appealing to the populist wing of the GOP, which is growing and the strongest it has been in many years.
And why even if Jeb Bush does run for the GOP nomination, as I suspect he will, he will have a hard time winning over those voters period. He will lose many votes on his pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and strong support for Common Core educational standards. And Mr. Bush was a very good, conservative governor of Florida, his last year was 2006 as governor. Twelve years and many issues ago.
The fact is one can't win the nomination today being a moderate and or a Bush.
Another reality is don't count two moderates out from setting up their own "explorations" into the '16 campaign.
That would be the aforementioned Mr. Romney and the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie.
The usual wisdom is that a center-right candidate usually emerges as stronger conservatives field multiple candidates. Kind of what happened in 2012 and Mr. Romney was the beneficiary of conservative infighting.
But what a treat it would be for us conservatives to watch three moderates, Messrs. Bush, Christie and Romney duke it out. And a conservative consensus candidate emerges. That candidate probably will not be the Rev. Huckabee. I would look very seriously at the former Texas governor and 2012 candidate, Rick Perry. He is emerging now that he is no longer governor, is not fighting the effects of a back operation as a serious candidate.
But as of now, in the death march for just the Republican nomination for president in 2016, we have two serious candidates. Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee.
Whenever any candidate for president is either "exploring" or setting up an "exploratory committee", you can bet your bottom dollar that they are and will be running for president.
Late last year, former Florida governor and latest member of a certain family, Jeb (John Ellis Bush) Bush announced that he is setting up a presidential "exploratory committee" for a "possible" run for the 2016 Republican nomination for president.
Tonight on his Fox News Channel program, the former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate, the Rev. Mike Huckabee, announced that he is leaving the Fox News Channel as he too is "exploring" entering what should be a crowded GOP field for 2016.
As I have my issues with Mr. Bush, I have issues with the Rev. Huckabee.
My main issue with the Rev. Huckabee is that I believe, despite denials on both sides, that he teamed up with the eventual GOP 2008 presidential nominee, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain to deny the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, the GOP nod.
Also, the Rev. Huckabee did seem to love his tax hikes while governor of Arkansas.
But he sure can say this.
He led the way for the Republican party to take over the state of Arkansas. Granted much of the GOP gains in Arkansas occurred after he left office and was capped off by the GOP winning control of the state legislature and all elected offices in the state.
The Rev. Huckabee has a lot of supporters and he does talk up a cultural populism. But again, I am not sure that he can gain much beyond his base of primarily Evangelical Christian voters.
Having a weekly talk gig on Fox News Channel has helped him communicate a message beyond politics and he has had many guests on his show that are very political polar opposites such as singer Melissa Etheridge.
And the Rev. Huckabee had the highest-rated cable show for his time slot on Saturday night.
It is possible that because of that he could be appealing to the populist wing of the GOP, which is growing and the strongest it has been in many years.
And why even if Jeb Bush does run for the GOP nomination, as I suspect he will, he will have a hard time winning over those voters period. He will lose many votes on his pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and strong support for Common Core educational standards. And Mr. Bush was a very good, conservative governor of Florida, his last year was 2006 as governor. Twelve years and many issues ago.
The fact is one can't win the nomination today being a moderate and or a Bush.
Another reality is don't count two moderates out from setting up their own "explorations" into the '16 campaign.
That would be the aforementioned Mr. Romney and the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie.
The usual wisdom is that a center-right candidate usually emerges as stronger conservatives field multiple candidates. Kind of what happened in 2012 and Mr. Romney was the beneficiary of conservative infighting.
But what a treat it would be for us conservatives to watch three moderates, Messrs. Bush, Christie and Romney duke it out. And a conservative consensus candidate emerges. That candidate probably will not be the Rev. Huckabee. I would look very seriously at the former Texas governor and 2012 candidate, Rick Perry. He is emerging now that he is no longer governor, is not fighting the effects of a back operation as a serious candidate.
But as of now, in the death march for just the Republican nomination for president in 2016, we have two serious candidates. Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
A Couple Of Reasons Why Americans Hate Politics AND Politicians
As if you did not realize it, the American political class really sucks these days.
There are numerous reasons why.
One is that the very people we elect to office at the multiple levels are becoming far removed from the people that they are supposed to serve.
There are two cases here of the political class suckage that is, at a level, just draining the ability of the average American voter to even care what happens in their cities, counties, states and the federal government.
Case number one is this special kind of stupid in the person of New York state assemblyman William Boyland, Jr.
Mr. Boyland was convicted last week of openly soliciting bribes for political favors. There were 21 counts and he was found guilty on all of them. Why he is so stupid, the judge would not even wait to sentence him. Federal judge Sandra Townes remanded him immediately as he was texting witnesses and lying about his whereabouts.
Nice.
The jurors on this case heard some of the most immortal words spoken by a politician regarding his $79,500 annual salary. Here they are:
“How the hell are you gonna live off of that?”
Good Lord in heaven!
How can he say that with a straight face?
Maybe he should not have made his comment in a well-known Manhattan steakhouse. Keen's Steakhouse to be exact. Now I link the menu because you should take a peek at the prices. Maybe he could live on $79,500 if he wasn't eating at such a place on the taxpayer's dime. I'm not saying he should be dining at McDonald's, but for crying out loud, is there nothing in between? And he does represent a Brooklyn district. Maybe, just maybe he could find decent dinning in his actual district.
But, Mr. Boyland explains that his paltry salary barely pays for his son's tuition and gas. Again, in the fateful words of our special kind of stupid:
“What the hell. That’s maybe my son’s tuition and maybe I pay for some gas, you know?
So, again, how can he eat even lunch at Keen's Steakhouse?
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Let's see, according to Empire Center, a New York state assembly member makes that $79,500 annual salary and a $171 per day per diem when the assembly is in session and $61 for a half day. And New York state is a full-time legislature. Most states have part-time legislatures. But not New York.
I will concede that the cost of living is higher in the Metro New York City area. But really, Mr. Boyland can't live on that?
Hmm, let's see if one breaks down Mr. Boyland's salary to an hourly rate, he would be making $41.41c an hour in an eight-hour day.
Maybe if Mr. Boyland did a little something called financial planning, he could afford his son's tuition. The article does not indicate if the son is in college or secondary school.
Needless to say, Mr. Boyland is a Democrat. When it comes to these kind of corruption cases, it usually involves a Democrat. For some reason, big-city Dems have the market on corruption. Not to say that the long arm of corruption does not extend to Republicans. It sure does. One of the most infamous cases involves former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Cal.). To me, he was the GOP version of this Boyland dude. Creepy from the get-go. And Mr. Boyland is not a rookie to all of this. His father and uncle served in the state assembly and a sister is on the New York City city council.
The disease known as greed is why some people get involved in politics in the first place. With all the anti-corruption laws in place throughout the United States, somehow there are a boat load of pols that seek ways to get around them and become a William Boyland, Jr.
The second case of annoying and or corrupt politicians leads to one of my favs, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and his stirring defense of the GOP trifecta of losing presidential candidates. That trifecta is former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. "F--- You" McCain himself and the 2012 loser, former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romeny.
Last week at the annual Conservative Political Action Committee annual conference, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) was explaining that he thought three out of the last four Republican presidential candidates did not do such a great job in their runs for the White House. In Sen. Cruz' comments, he said that they were not really conservative enough and seemed too squishy for his taste.
So, Sen. "F--- You" McCain did not like that Sen. Cruz mentioned his friend, former Sen. Dole. Fine, whatever. But here is where Sen. "F--- You" McCain saved his venom, as he often does, for fellow Republicans. Here ya go:
I wonder if he thinks that Bob Dole stood for principle on that hilltop in Italy when he was so gravely wounded and left part of his body there fighting for our country?
Now as Allahpundit over at Hotair.com notes, Sen. Cruz said that all three were good and decent men. And they are. And especially former Sen. Dole.
But the cheap shot from Sen. "F--- You" McCain is to indicate that one cannot criticize anyone who served their nation in war time. Before I continue, here is Sen. Cruz entire speech to CPAC:
I would say to watch for yourself and see if Sen. Cruz is somehow criticizing former Sen. Dole for his service to our nation. He is not. And Allahpundit is spot on about how, especially in the cases of both former Sen. Dole and Sen "F--- You" McCain, they totally ran their campaigns on their biography which included their war service. When it came to articulating the differences they had with their respected Democrat opponents, they did have a hard time. No question that their handlers, as well as Mr. Romney's, were going to not get into the weeds about the differences in ideology. That is a fact.
And what Sen. Cruz was saying is without a contrast, voters were going to vote for the incumbent or the other guy. Again a fact.
I think that Sen. Cruz needs to really turn his attention from fellow Republicans to Democrats especially with the mid-term elections coming in November.
But this is standard fare for Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Wonder why he is known here as Sen. "F--- You" McCain?
I have explained before, but new readers probably do not know.
During the heat of the 2007 debate over so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx) objected to Sen. McCain trying to ram the bill through. The dialogue went like this:
"Wait a second here. I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line," to which McCain replied, "Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room."
Charming.
The problem that Sen. Cruz does not want to have hanging on him is that he saves his venom for fellow Republicans. That is what has happened over the years with Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Why do I loathe Sen. "F--- You" McCain, even though I voted for the 2008 GOP presidential candidate?
Because he has been a congressman and senator since 1986. He will have spent 30 years in Washington by the time his current senate term ends in 2016. He is a creature of Washington. He speaks Washingtonese.He himself almost became embroiled in the Keating Five scandal of the late 1980s. He was lucky that he came out of it relatively unscathed. He talks about the earmarks that almost all congressmen do as if most Americans understand what that means. It is something that is barely a full one percent of the federal budget. It makes him seem to be a hawk on government spending. He talks about all the pals he has in the senate. And his intransigent stand on foreign military endeavors and so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform do remove him from those that elected him time and time again.
That is what Sen. Cruz was articulating. That one should stick to what they believe and not get caught up in the Washington Beltway nonsense. Clearly over the years, former Sen. Dole and Sen. "F--- You" McCain became Washington.
What do these two things have to do with each other?
One pol thinks that he should find illegal ways for additional income because he can't live like, well probably most of his constituents.
The other gets caught up in the years he has spent in government and forgets why he claimed to run in the first place.
Both feel a certain sense of entitlement because they are politicians. They have made a career of politics.
The Founding Father's intent was that people would run for office and serve in a part-time capacity. That they would go back when they weren't legislating to their careers and be part of the people that they serve.
But now, politics has become a career. It is truly bipartisan. Does not matter if one is a Republican or a Democrat. They see themselves as an entitled class and the voters as saps to vote for them in the first place.
These are but two reasons why a lot of the American people hate politics and politicians.
There are numerous reasons why.
One is that the very people we elect to office at the multiple levels are becoming far removed from the people that they are supposed to serve.
There are two cases here of the political class suckage that is, at a level, just draining the ability of the average American voter to even care what happens in their cities, counties, states and the federal government.
Case number one is this special kind of stupid in the person of New York state assemblyman William Boyland, Jr.
Mr. Boyland was convicted last week of openly soliciting bribes for political favors. There were 21 counts and he was found guilty on all of them. Why he is so stupid, the judge would not even wait to sentence him. Federal judge Sandra Townes remanded him immediately as he was texting witnesses and lying about his whereabouts.
Nice.
The jurors on this case heard some of the most immortal words spoken by a politician regarding his $79,500 annual salary. Here they are:
“How the hell are you gonna live off of that?”
Good Lord in heaven!
How can he say that with a straight face?
Maybe he should not have made his comment in a well-known Manhattan steakhouse. Keen's Steakhouse to be exact. Now I link the menu because you should take a peek at the prices. Maybe he could live on $79,500 if he wasn't eating at such a place on the taxpayer's dime. I'm not saying he should be dining at McDonald's, but for crying out loud, is there nothing in between? And he does represent a Brooklyn district. Maybe, just maybe he could find decent dinning in his actual district.
But, Mr. Boyland explains that his paltry salary barely pays for his son's tuition and gas. Again, in the fateful words of our special kind of stupid:
“What the hell. That’s maybe my son’s tuition and maybe I pay for some gas, you know?
So, again, how can he eat even lunch at Keen's Steakhouse?
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Let's see, according to Empire Center, a New York state assembly member makes that $79,500 annual salary and a $171 per day per diem when the assembly is in session and $61 for a half day. And New York state is a full-time legislature. Most states have part-time legislatures. But not New York.
I will concede that the cost of living is higher in the Metro New York City area. But really, Mr. Boyland can't live on that?
Hmm, let's see if one breaks down Mr. Boyland's salary to an hourly rate, he would be making $41.41c an hour in an eight-hour day.
Maybe if Mr. Boyland did a little something called financial planning, he could afford his son's tuition. The article does not indicate if the son is in college or secondary school.
Needless to say, Mr. Boyland is a Democrat. When it comes to these kind of corruption cases, it usually involves a Democrat. For some reason, big-city Dems have the market on corruption. Not to say that the long arm of corruption does not extend to Republicans. It sure does. One of the most infamous cases involves former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Cal.). To me, he was the GOP version of this Boyland dude. Creepy from the get-go. And Mr. Boyland is not a rookie to all of this. His father and uncle served in the state assembly and a sister is on the New York City city council.
The disease known as greed is why some people get involved in politics in the first place. With all the anti-corruption laws in place throughout the United States, somehow there are a boat load of pols that seek ways to get around them and become a William Boyland, Jr.
The second case of annoying and or corrupt politicians leads to one of my favs, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and his stirring defense of the GOP trifecta of losing presidential candidates. That trifecta is former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. "F--- You" McCain himself and the 2012 loser, former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romeny.
Last week at the annual Conservative Political Action Committee annual conference, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) was explaining that he thought three out of the last four Republican presidential candidates did not do such a great job in their runs for the White House. In Sen. Cruz' comments, he said that they were not really conservative enough and seemed too squishy for his taste.
So, Sen. "F--- You" McCain did not like that Sen. Cruz mentioned his friend, former Sen. Dole. Fine, whatever. But here is where Sen. "F--- You" McCain saved his venom, as he often does, for fellow Republicans. Here ya go:
I wonder if he thinks that Bob Dole stood for principle on that hilltop in Italy when he was so gravely wounded and left part of his body there fighting for our country?
Now as Allahpundit over at Hotair.com notes, Sen. Cruz said that all three were good and decent men. And they are. And especially former Sen. Dole.
But the cheap shot from Sen. "F--- You" McCain is to indicate that one cannot criticize anyone who served their nation in war time. Before I continue, here is Sen. Cruz entire speech to CPAC:
I would say to watch for yourself and see if Sen. Cruz is somehow criticizing former Sen. Dole for his service to our nation. He is not. And Allahpundit is spot on about how, especially in the cases of both former Sen. Dole and Sen "F--- You" McCain, they totally ran their campaigns on their biography which included their war service. When it came to articulating the differences they had with their respected Democrat opponents, they did have a hard time. No question that their handlers, as well as Mr. Romney's, were going to not get into the weeds about the differences in ideology. That is a fact.
And what Sen. Cruz was saying is without a contrast, voters were going to vote for the incumbent or the other guy. Again a fact.
I think that Sen. Cruz needs to really turn his attention from fellow Republicans to Democrats especially with the mid-term elections coming in November.
But this is standard fare for Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Wonder why he is known here as Sen. "F--- You" McCain?
I have explained before, but new readers probably do not know.
During the heat of the 2007 debate over so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx) objected to Sen. McCain trying to ram the bill through. The dialogue went like this:
"Wait a second here. I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line," to which McCain replied, "Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room."
Charming.
The problem that Sen. Cruz does not want to have hanging on him is that he saves his venom for fellow Republicans. That is what has happened over the years with Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Why do I loathe Sen. "F--- You" McCain, even though I voted for the 2008 GOP presidential candidate?
Because he has been a congressman and senator since 1986. He will have spent 30 years in Washington by the time his current senate term ends in 2016. He is a creature of Washington. He speaks Washingtonese.He himself almost became embroiled in the Keating Five scandal of the late 1980s. He was lucky that he came out of it relatively unscathed. He talks about the earmarks that almost all congressmen do as if most Americans understand what that means. It is something that is barely a full one percent of the federal budget. It makes him seem to be a hawk on government spending. He talks about all the pals he has in the senate. And his intransigent stand on foreign military endeavors and so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform do remove him from those that elected him time and time again.
That is what Sen. Cruz was articulating. That one should stick to what they believe and not get caught up in the Washington Beltway nonsense. Clearly over the years, former Sen. Dole and Sen. "F--- You" McCain became Washington.
What do these two things have to do with each other?
One pol thinks that he should find illegal ways for additional income because he can't live like, well probably most of his constituents.
The other gets caught up in the years he has spent in government and forgets why he claimed to run in the first place.
Both feel a certain sense of entitlement because they are politicians. They have made a career of politics.
The Founding Father's intent was that people would run for office and serve in a part-time capacity. That they would go back when they weren't legislating to their careers and be part of the people that they serve.
But now, politics has become a career. It is truly bipartisan. Does not matter if one is a Republican or a Democrat. They see themselves as an entitled class and the voters as saps to vote for them in the first place.
These are but two reasons why a lot of the American people hate politics and politicians.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The American People Have Stopped Listening To The Dear Leader, President Obama
Yes, I think that it is true.
The American people, save for his base, has given up listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Same thing happened to former President George W. Bush. To a lesser extent to former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. There comes a point, usually about this time, that the people and or voters just stop listening.
And it does eventually come back to bite the incumbent president.
And sometimes a president will just get desperate and hope that there fulminations to the base will somehow get to those not listening.
Let me explain.
In 2006, most of us conservative and Republicans did not see the forest through the trees. We thought that somehow then President Bush will get his overall message across, especially on Iraq. The people overall were just tired of the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacist Terror. And no matter how hard he tried, the people just stopped listening. Coupled with a relentless assault by the liberal left of the Democrat party and the mid term election of 2006 was an utter disaster that saw the Republican control of congress end. And of course the election of the Democrat presidential candidate, then Sen. Messiah Barack.
It is exactly what is happening today.
I find myself on the other side now. I am not listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama. He can say the sky is blue and after a grunt under my breath, I just don't care.
It is the overall reason that the American people do not support the Dear Leader, President Obama, on his "policy" regarding the use of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria. Besides having an absolutely incoherent approach to the issue, the vast majority of people just were not paying attention. They do not care. No, not that they don't care about the Syrian people but that there is not just a war weariness but just a thought that this president and the political class as a whole is just totally out of touch.
So while a gunman was going on a total rampage at the Washington Navy Yard this past Monday, the president made a passing comment about it while going on an uncontrollable rant of Republican bashing regarding budget issues and the funding of Obamacare.
While I personally loathe any president inserting themselves in the middle of an ongoing unfolding story, especially when a crazed gunman is involved, it was built up on all media he was going to comment on the situation. He did and continued on the rant without realizing how petty to most people it would come off being.
So much does the leader of the party, in this case the Dear Leader, President Obama, become a pariah that few if any candidates will want him to campaign for them openly in next year's congressional elections. For once people stop listening, they do not want to hear anymore. Those that vote are going to look for change.
Trust me my Democrat friends, this is going to happen.
I do not know if there is one issue in particular or just that now with the advent of the ever expanding social media landscape, but the overall populace just tunes out a president at this point in their presidency.
Now the Dear Leader, President Obama, gets a five point advantage because there is a segment of those asked in polls that they do not have a vile hatred. I know people do not like why I believe that to be the case, but even in a poll there are people that do not want to be branded as racist and thus will say that sure, they like the Dear Leader, President Obama, personally. But keep asking questions and the same people pretty much will not like any of his policies. And if you take that out of the equation and you are looking at borderline George W. Bush numbers at the same point in their presidencies.
Again, we see that he is playing totally to his base now. He long ago gave up on any Republicans and all but has given up on the middle-of-the-road voters. Now he is even not paying attention to a good part of his base, the low-information voters. No, it is all the base that he believes will be able to offset all the negativity.
It won't.
So what to do?
Not unlike George W. Bush, the Dear Leader, President Obama, will just keep things the way that they are and hope that somehow those that vote in the midterm congressional elections will be what got him reelected in 2012.
But his name is not on the ballot anywhere in 2014. And the same type of voter will just not show up. The motivation of that voter in 2012, reelecting the Dear Leader, President Obama, is not there. Many of those voters are probably disenchanted by what has happened under the second term. Some just liked him and could care less about anything else. And yes, whether we on the right want to admit it or not, we had the same kind of voters in 2004 for then President Bush. The Big Mo is on the other side. The people really unhappy with the Dear Leader, President Obama, is much more motivated than those that like the dude. Because again, there is less of that than in 2012 when everything was rainbows and unicorns.
But for us on the right, there is still that subculture of RINOs* that want nothing more to do than snatch victory that can be had in 2014. They constantly look for ways to try to save the Dear Leader, President Obama.
However, once again the Tea Party is getting back in groove and the issue that they have going their way is the implementation of Obamacare.
Again, the motivation is on the side of the outs, not the side of those already in.
Maybe it can be something called a six-year itch among voters.
But one thing is certain.
The American people have stopped listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama, and will continue to do so until the 2016 election.
*-RINO-Republican In Name Only.
The American people, save for his base, has given up listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Same thing happened to former President George W. Bush. To a lesser extent to former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. There comes a point, usually about this time, that the people and or voters just stop listening.
And it does eventually come back to bite the incumbent president.
And sometimes a president will just get desperate and hope that there fulminations to the base will somehow get to those not listening.
Let me explain.
In 2006, most of us conservative and Republicans did not see the forest through the trees. We thought that somehow then President Bush will get his overall message across, especially on Iraq. The people overall were just tired of the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacist Terror. And no matter how hard he tried, the people just stopped listening. Coupled with a relentless assault by the liberal left of the Democrat party and the mid term election of 2006 was an utter disaster that saw the Republican control of congress end. And of course the election of the Democrat presidential candidate, then Sen. Messiah Barack.
It is exactly what is happening today.
I find myself on the other side now. I am not listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama. He can say the sky is blue and after a grunt under my breath, I just don't care.
It is the overall reason that the American people do not support the Dear Leader, President Obama, on his "policy" regarding the use of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria. Besides having an absolutely incoherent approach to the issue, the vast majority of people just were not paying attention. They do not care. No, not that they don't care about the Syrian people but that there is not just a war weariness but just a thought that this president and the political class as a whole is just totally out of touch.
So while a gunman was going on a total rampage at the Washington Navy Yard this past Monday, the president made a passing comment about it while going on an uncontrollable rant of Republican bashing regarding budget issues and the funding of Obamacare.
While I personally loathe any president inserting themselves in the middle of an ongoing unfolding story, especially when a crazed gunman is involved, it was built up on all media he was going to comment on the situation. He did and continued on the rant without realizing how petty to most people it would come off being.
So much does the leader of the party, in this case the Dear Leader, President Obama, become a pariah that few if any candidates will want him to campaign for them openly in next year's congressional elections. For once people stop listening, they do not want to hear anymore. Those that vote are going to look for change.
Trust me my Democrat friends, this is going to happen.
I do not know if there is one issue in particular or just that now with the advent of the ever expanding social media landscape, but the overall populace just tunes out a president at this point in their presidency.
Now the Dear Leader, President Obama, gets a five point advantage because there is a segment of those asked in polls that they do not have a vile hatred. I know people do not like why I believe that to be the case, but even in a poll there are people that do not want to be branded as racist and thus will say that sure, they like the Dear Leader, President Obama, personally. But keep asking questions and the same people pretty much will not like any of his policies. And if you take that out of the equation and you are looking at borderline George W. Bush numbers at the same point in their presidencies.
Again, we see that he is playing totally to his base now. He long ago gave up on any Republicans and all but has given up on the middle-of-the-road voters. Now he is even not paying attention to a good part of his base, the low-information voters. No, it is all the base that he believes will be able to offset all the negativity.
It won't.
So what to do?
Not unlike George W. Bush, the Dear Leader, President Obama, will just keep things the way that they are and hope that somehow those that vote in the midterm congressional elections will be what got him reelected in 2012.
But his name is not on the ballot anywhere in 2014. And the same type of voter will just not show up. The motivation of that voter in 2012, reelecting the Dear Leader, President Obama, is not there. Many of those voters are probably disenchanted by what has happened under the second term. Some just liked him and could care less about anything else. And yes, whether we on the right want to admit it or not, we had the same kind of voters in 2004 for then President Bush. The Big Mo is on the other side. The people really unhappy with the Dear Leader, President Obama, is much more motivated than those that like the dude. Because again, there is less of that than in 2012 when everything was rainbows and unicorns.
But for us on the right, there is still that subculture of RINOs* that want nothing more to do than snatch victory that can be had in 2014. They constantly look for ways to try to save the Dear Leader, President Obama.
However, once again the Tea Party is getting back in groove and the issue that they have going their way is the implementation of Obamacare.
Again, the motivation is on the side of the outs, not the side of those already in.
Maybe it can be something called a six-year itch among voters.
But one thing is certain.
The American people have stopped listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama, and will continue to do so until the 2016 election.
*-RINO-Republican In Name Only.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Scandalpalooza Proves One Thing That Our Government Is Out Of Control
To be honest there are way too many scandals to write about in just one post that are tied directly or indirectly to the Obama administration.
There are two that IMHO really stick out that seem to prove the axiom that we have a way, way big government that may be totally out of control.
There is the IRS scandal and the NSA scandal that if it all plays out will show a frightening reach that no one could have imagined as little as five years ago when Team Obama arrived in Washington, D. C.
Start with the IRS Scandal.
The gist of it is that a multitude of new, Tea Party and allied groups applied to the Internal Revenue Service to be tax-exempt organizations starting in 2010.
Keep the year in mind.
The Tea Party, not an actual political party but an idea, started with this totally epic rant from CNBC's Rick Santelli.
From this many Americans believed that Mr. Santelli spoke for them. Count me as one of those Americans. Later that year, millions of Americans held rallies on the dreaded April 15. THAT is the date that lives in perpetual infamy for it is the day that American income taxpayers file their paperwork to pay their taxes. From that, again many Americans thought that it would be good to organize and thus as part of that organization, most are non-profit educational organizations.
Ahh, but 2010, that was a mid-term national election. At that point, the Democrats had control in Washington of the White House and both houses of congress. And both houses beyond comfortable margins.
So, the IRS got a lot of applications from conservative groups. Groups that had possibly as part of their name Tea Party. Constitution. Patriot. I think that you get the idea.
OK, it does get murky as to who actually was behind clear intimidation of new groups seeking what is in shorthand a 501(c)(4) tax exemption.
The Cincinnati field office of the IRS is the one that handles the 501(c)(4) requests. In March of 2010, they began to very closely scrutinize the many new conservative groups seeking the tax-exempt status. Here is the "guidelines" that they used:
referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;
outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";
had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;
advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare;
questioned the integrity of federal elections.
The above is courtesy of the Wikipedia link from earlier in this post.
The evidence is very overwhelming that the IRS took way more to scrutinize conservative groups than liberal groups.
And there are a lot of names behind this that makes clear that there is a lot of splainin to do. Lois Lerner, Douglas Shulman, Steven Miller. All are deeply involved in this clear targeting of groups that opposed the Obama administration.
But, according to the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) claims that he interviewed an unnamed "conservative Republican" that was also involved in the targeting.
Since the "conservative Republican" is not named, I will believe that he or she does not exist.
And anyone can say they are a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat, who cares? What does that mean there was not a targeting of these groups?
Of course.
Understand that right now, there is a liberal Democrat government in Washington, D. C. And whether this came from the White House, directly or indirectly, it says that there is a tacit approval of raw political power over just showing the same scrutiny to any group that would apply for a 501(c)(4) tax exemption.
It is a sign of a huge, out of control government.
The second scandal, the NSA scandal may affect more Americans than the IRS one. It is because it, as we are to understand it, the National Security Agency was conducting surveillance on millions if not billions of phone calls between Americans.
I will be perfectly honest on two fronts.
One, this is complex. Because from all that has been released it appears that the government has not, supposedly, actually listened to calls. They merely can know when we placed a call, to who, and how long that call was. This article from the left-wing newspaper, The Guardian, that broke the story explains how it is supposedly done.
Oh, did I mention that all of this is supposed to be classified and one needs security clearance to access such things.
Which brings us to Edward Snowden, the traitor or whistle blower who spilled the beans on this.
Is Mr. Snowden a traitor, a whistle blower or both?
I think that Mr. Snowden is, at this point, both a traitor and a whistle blower.
This is a clearly sensitive program in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. It is one of the tools that even the Obama administration realizes is needed in trying to track down potential terrorists and possible plots that they may be trying to commit against the United States. Yet it appears that this has gone way out of control.
And, something many defenders of this program have not caught on to.
The current administration has been doing all it can to downplay the Islamofascist threat. Yet on any chance that they can get, they go out of their way to emphasize domestic terror. Particularly so-called right wing terrorism. Take the IRS scandal and then understand that this program in targeting pretty much anyone with a phone and once again, the American people have a right to be leery of their government.
But lets get back to the PRISM case.
How do we know that phone calls are not being listened to? Not once has there been anything that has been said that in fact and indeed, everyday Americans are not being listened to?
Also, a case can be made that a non-success of this program is that the Boston bombers succeeded in their act of terror.
These two cases still have to play out.
But one thing is clear.
The federal government is way too big and way too out of control.
When the people do not trust the government in this manner, then there is a righteous fear of the government. That is why it is beyond important for these scandals to be thoroughly investigated. That those who have committed wrongdoing are brought to justice. That we revisit our tax code and yes, even the Patriot Act, so hated by the left and libertarians alike.
Scandalpalooza is just solidifying what conservatives have been saying since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president in 1932.
That the government is getting bigger and removed from the people.
How we will balance that out is the new challenge.
There are two that IMHO really stick out that seem to prove the axiom that we have a way, way big government that may be totally out of control.
There is the IRS scandal and the NSA scandal that if it all plays out will show a frightening reach that no one could have imagined as little as five years ago when Team Obama arrived in Washington, D. C.
Start with the IRS Scandal.
The gist of it is that a multitude of new, Tea Party and allied groups applied to the Internal Revenue Service to be tax-exempt organizations starting in 2010.
Keep the year in mind.
The Tea Party, not an actual political party but an idea, started with this totally epic rant from CNBC's Rick Santelli.
Ahh, but 2010, that was a mid-term national election. At that point, the Democrats had control in Washington of the White House and both houses of congress. And both houses beyond comfortable margins.
So, the IRS got a lot of applications from conservative groups. Groups that had possibly as part of their name Tea Party. Constitution. Patriot. I think that you get the idea.
OK, it does get murky as to who actually was behind clear intimidation of new groups seeking what is in shorthand a 501(c)(4) tax exemption.
The Cincinnati field office of the IRS is the one that handles the 501(c)(4) requests. In March of 2010, they began to very closely scrutinize the many new conservative groups seeking the tax-exempt status. Here is the "guidelines" that they used:
The above is courtesy of the Wikipedia link from earlier in this post.
The evidence is very overwhelming that the IRS took way more to scrutinize conservative groups than liberal groups.
And there are a lot of names behind this that makes clear that there is a lot of splainin to do. Lois Lerner, Douglas Shulman, Steven Miller. All are deeply involved in this clear targeting of groups that opposed the Obama administration.
But, according to the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) claims that he interviewed an unnamed "conservative Republican" that was also involved in the targeting.
Since the "conservative Republican" is not named, I will believe that he or she does not exist.
And anyone can say they are a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat, who cares? What does that mean there was not a targeting of these groups?
Of course.
Understand that right now, there is a liberal Democrat government in Washington, D. C. And whether this came from the White House, directly or indirectly, it says that there is a tacit approval of raw political power over just showing the same scrutiny to any group that would apply for a 501(c)(4) tax exemption.
It is a sign of a huge, out of control government.
The second scandal, the NSA scandal may affect more Americans than the IRS one. It is because it, as we are to understand it, the National Security Agency was conducting surveillance on millions if not billions of phone calls between Americans.
I will be perfectly honest on two fronts.
One, this is complex. Because from all that has been released it appears that the government has not, supposedly, actually listened to calls. They merely can know when we placed a call, to who, and how long that call was. This article from the left-wing newspaper, The Guardian, that broke the story explains how it is supposedly done.
Oh, did I mention that all of this is supposed to be classified and one needs security clearance to access such things.
Which brings us to Edward Snowden, the traitor or whistle blower who spilled the beans on this.
Is Mr. Snowden a traitor, a whistle blower or both?
I think that Mr. Snowden is, at this point, both a traitor and a whistle blower.
This is a clearly sensitive program in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. It is one of the tools that even the Obama administration realizes is needed in trying to track down potential terrorists and possible plots that they may be trying to commit against the United States. Yet it appears that this has gone way out of control.
And, something many defenders of this program have not caught on to.
The current administration has been doing all it can to downplay the Islamofascist threat. Yet on any chance that they can get, they go out of their way to emphasize domestic terror. Particularly so-called right wing terrorism. Take the IRS scandal and then understand that this program in targeting pretty much anyone with a phone and once again, the American people have a right to be leery of their government.
But lets get back to the PRISM case.
How do we know that phone calls are not being listened to? Not once has there been anything that has been said that in fact and indeed, everyday Americans are not being listened to?
Also, a case can be made that a non-success of this program is that the Boston bombers succeeded in their act of terror.
These two cases still have to play out.
But one thing is clear.
The federal government is way too big and way too out of control.
When the people do not trust the government in this manner, then there is a righteous fear of the government. That is why it is beyond important for these scandals to be thoroughly investigated. That those who have committed wrongdoing are brought to justice. That we revisit our tax code and yes, even the Patriot Act, so hated by the left and libertarians alike.
Scandalpalooza is just solidifying what conservatives have been saying since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president in 1932.
That the government is getting bigger and removed from the people.
How we will balance that out is the new challenge.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Yes, There Really Are Two Californias
As I wrote earlier, the family took a trip to Yosemite National Park this past week. And we drove from RVFTLC headquarters to Yosemite.
The route that we took put us in the heart of Red California, the Central Valley and such cities as Bakersfield and Fresno and a lot of small towns and villages in between. As noted here, Bakersfield is one of the most conservative large cites in California. And while Fresno does have more registered Democrats, it too is relatively conservative.
And the counties that Yosemite are in, Madera, Mariposa and of Tuolumne are some of the most solidly conservative in the state. And, unfortunately some of the smallest in population.
But it is stark to realize that this part of California is around.
Even though I live in California, I live in such a liberal area that I may even forget that there is this part of the state until actually visiting there.
It is not just in politics that I note the differences.
Mrs. RVFTLC made a serious observation as we were travelling California state route 99 on our way to Fresno.
That there were very, very few high-end luxury cars on the road with us.
And she was spot on.
We hardly saw a BMer. A Mercedes. A Lexus. An Audi. An Infiniti.
You get the idea.
Once I realized this, I felt at home. It seems like almost everyone in the big cities around here has one of the aforementioned cars. But in the Central Valley and the Mother Lode, most people are practical. And it shows in what they drive.
But it is not just in what they drive as much as a totally different attitude in the people. I mean, they are genuinely friendly.
An example is that we made a pit-stop in the city of Mariposa. We found a Burger King, did our business. But we did not purchase anything. And usually we do. But the gentleman at the counter did not scold us for using the rest room. He said "Thank you and have a good day." If that happened here in Pasadena, it would be a near crime of the century. But here we were, total strangers in a very small town and not treated like criminals, but as people that might actually come back someday.
And in general, people smiled, said hello. And it was infectious enough to make your humble yet cynical blogger to smile right back and give a hello.
And the other aspect that is one that really made me think how different this part of California is that this area so depends on agriculture. It is the back bone of this region. It is literally the bread-basket of not just the United States but the world. And these kind of place are naturally more down-to-earth than those of us in the big cities.
But culturally, one huge difference between here and there.
Religion.
It is very clear that in this region, God is alive and well. There are churches everywhere. Even in the smallest towns there is at least a Roman Catholic church and a couple of Protestant churches. In larger towns and cities there are Jewish and Islamic places of worship. And it appears that all get along well. Because while they may nor agree on theology, they agree that practicing their faith is important and should not and can not be trampled on.
Yes, when one travels around California, it is clear that there are two distinct states. The state of Los Angeles, the Bay Area. And the state of the Central Valley and the Mother Lode. And they could not be more poles apart in almost every way.
It is a microcosm of the United States in general.
And it gives me hope that some of the positives of the Central Valley and Mother Lode can creep into life here in deep Blue California. For we can use a lot of it.
The route that we took put us in the heart of Red California, the Central Valley and such cities as Bakersfield and Fresno and a lot of small towns and villages in between. As noted here, Bakersfield is one of the most conservative large cites in California. And while Fresno does have more registered Democrats, it too is relatively conservative.
And the counties that Yosemite are in, Madera, Mariposa and of Tuolumne are some of the most solidly conservative in the state. And, unfortunately some of the smallest in population.
But it is stark to realize that this part of California is around.
Even though I live in California, I live in such a liberal area that I may even forget that there is this part of the state until actually visiting there.
It is not just in politics that I note the differences.
Mrs. RVFTLC made a serious observation as we were travelling California state route 99 on our way to Fresno.
That there were very, very few high-end luxury cars on the road with us.
And she was spot on.
We hardly saw a BMer. A Mercedes. A Lexus. An Audi. An Infiniti.
You get the idea.
Once I realized this, I felt at home. It seems like almost everyone in the big cities around here has one of the aforementioned cars. But in the Central Valley and the Mother Lode, most people are practical. And it shows in what they drive.
But it is not just in what they drive as much as a totally different attitude in the people. I mean, they are genuinely friendly.
An example is that we made a pit-stop in the city of Mariposa. We found a Burger King, did our business. But we did not purchase anything. And usually we do. But the gentleman at the counter did not scold us for using the rest room. He said "Thank you and have a good day." If that happened here in Pasadena, it would be a near crime of the century. But here we were, total strangers in a very small town and not treated like criminals, but as people that might actually come back someday.
And in general, people smiled, said hello. And it was infectious enough to make your humble yet cynical blogger to smile right back and give a hello.
And the other aspect that is one that really made me think how different this part of California is that this area so depends on agriculture. It is the back bone of this region. It is literally the bread-basket of not just the United States but the world. And these kind of place are naturally more down-to-earth than those of us in the big cities.
But culturally, one huge difference between here and there.
Religion.
It is very clear that in this region, God is alive and well. There are churches everywhere. Even in the smallest towns there is at least a Roman Catholic church and a couple of Protestant churches. In larger towns and cities there are Jewish and Islamic places of worship. And it appears that all get along well. Because while they may nor agree on theology, they agree that practicing their faith is important and should not and can not be trampled on.
Yes, when one travels around California, it is clear that there are two distinct states. The state of Los Angeles, the Bay Area. And the state of the Central Valley and the Mother Lode. And they could not be more poles apart in almost every way.
It is a microcosm of the United States in general.
And it gives me hope that some of the positives of the Central Valley and Mother Lode can creep into life here in deep Blue California. For we can use a lot of it.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
California As The Fairy Tale
Of course the place where Disneyland opened way back in 1955 has been an enchanting land o' plenty.
Until about the last 30 years.
It suddenly came to me as I have been thinking about how this once Golden State is, well broken like an grim fairy tale.
And the problem is not just one political party over the other. Although one is much more at fault than the other. But both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to the problems.
The problems, plural. Because there are many.
One of the obvious economic problems very clear, my friends.
We are flat broke.
All forms of government from cities, counties, the state governments are all broke.
Last Sunday in the Left Angeles Times was an article of the plight of Stockton. It is so bad in Stockton that it may become the largest municipality to, dare I write this, declare bankruptcy. And it is a city of over 300,000.
And yes, another city has declared bankruptcy in California.
That would be Vallejo in the outer San Francisco Bay Area.
On May 7, 2008, long before the current government fiscal crisis came along, the Vallejo city council declared bankruptcy. And it only emerged last year.
County governments are in no better shape.
And the state government. Well that is interesting.
Once again the solution from the Democrat governor, Jerry Moonbeam Brown, and the Democrat-controlled state legislature is to raise taxes.
But they will not do it.
Nope, they want us to do so. And as noted in an earlier post, There could be up to three ballot initiatives in November asking us to do the legislature's and governor's dirty work.
But here is the fairy tale.
That somehow we could force the state government to allot at least 40% of the state budget for education. That is what voters voted on in 1988 in the form of Proposition 98. And that was done so that Kindergarten through 12th grade would have a guaranteed amount. Before that the state was, surprise, raiding the state budget for education to try to fund other programs.
Oh, and on almost every level, California ranks 49th out of 50 states. Probably not on per capita per pupil spending. But that is another post.
That somehow the state could offer workers unending pay and benefit hikes without the money to pay for the long term, especially state employee pensions. And because of the way other budgets are done, essentially the state helps counties and cities with their unbelievable pay and bennies package.
That somehow, we could have the most pristine coastline and think gee, we don't or should not have to pay high gas prices.
That there is just an endless stream of one percenters that we can keep taxing. And taxing. And taxing.
That regulations will not kill businesses.
That cutting off the water supply to Central California farmers to protect the Delta Smelt will not result in higher food prices.
That depending solely on a service and high-tech economy will produce good paying jobs. Having little if any manufacturing will be OK. Because we have the Silicon Valley. But now many of those high-tech entrepreneurs are beginning to get restless.
That having a higher minimum-wage than the federal government will produce a bevy of jobs. Especially summer jobs for youths.
NOT!
In fact, NOT TO ANY OF THE ABOVE!
If it is not government over reach, taxation and regulation, it is the stratification of the people that is really troubling.
Many cities that once had a strong, productive middle-class, are being replaced by yuppies and the Stuff White Liberal People Like crowd. It is better know as the SWPL crowd, but here at RVFTLC headquarters, I just add the obvious liberal to make sure all understand. Which leaves a lot of upper middle-class and poor people. One term is gentrification. It would not be a bad thing if some middle-class working people were part of the gentrification process. But the whole idea keep them out as well as the poor people. Thus what is left is something that I do not remember growing up in the Los Angeles area.
A real class structure.
Add to that the replacement of the defense industry with entertainment and the fairy tale is complete.
And while I just gave some of the facts, I want to look at solutions. California needs real leadership. Not political only but business, spiritual and yes leadership from the bottom up.
It is not Wall Street vs Main Street so much as reality vs fairy tale.
A government as big as it is in California is bound to fall under its own weight.
Regulations will eventually drive even big companies away.
High Taxes, well as I noted, if you believe that only one percent of Americans are wealthy, there are just so many to go around even here in the once Golden State. And if they are imposed on businesses, guess what? WE will enjoy paying more for products.
Gee, isn't this fairy tale fun kiddies?
No it is not.
But if we don't want to end up a basket case like Greece, the people need to rise up at the ballot box in November as a start. We can not keep voting the same dim bulbs that keep digging the ditch deeper.
What we need, and I am serious, is s 21st century Walt Disney.
Until about the last 30 years.
It suddenly came to me as I have been thinking about how this once Golden State is, well broken like an grim fairy tale.
And the problem is not just one political party over the other. Although one is much more at fault than the other. But both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to the problems.
The problems, plural. Because there are many.
One of the obvious economic problems very clear, my friends.
We are flat broke.
All forms of government from cities, counties, the state governments are all broke.
Last Sunday in the Left Angeles Times was an article of the plight of Stockton. It is so bad in Stockton that it may become the largest municipality to, dare I write this, declare bankruptcy. And it is a city of over 300,000.
And yes, another city has declared bankruptcy in California.
That would be Vallejo in the outer San Francisco Bay Area.
On May 7, 2008, long before the current government fiscal crisis came along, the Vallejo city council declared bankruptcy. And it only emerged last year.
County governments are in no better shape.
And the state government. Well that is interesting.
Once again the solution from the Democrat governor, Jerry Moonbeam Brown, and the Democrat-controlled state legislature is to raise taxes.
But they will not do it.
Nope, they want us to do so. And as noted in an earlier post, There could be up to three ballot initiatives in November asking us to do the legislature's and governor's dirty work.
But here is the fairy tale.
That somehow we could force the state government to allot at least 40% of the state budget for education. That is what voters voted on in 1988 in the form of Proposition 98. And that was done so that Kindergarten through 12th grade would have a guaranteed amount. Before that the state was, surprise, raiding the state budget for education to try to fund other programs.
Oh, and on almost every level, California ranks 49th out of 50 states. Probably not on per capita per pupil spending. But that is another post.
That somehow the state could offer workers unending pay and benefit hikes without the money to pay for the long term, especially state employee pensions. And because of the way other budgets are done, essentially the state helps counties and cities with their unbelievable pay and bennies package.
That somehow, we could have the most pristine coastline and think gee, we don't or should not have to pay high gas prices.
That there is just an endless stream of one percenters that we can keep taxing. And taxing. And taxing.
That regulations will not kill businesses.
That cutting off the water supply to Central California farmers to protect the Delta Smelt will not result in higher food prices.
That depending solely on a service and high-tech economy will produce good paying jobs. Having little if any manufacturing will be OK. Because we have the Silicon Valley. But now many of those high-tech entrepreneurs are beginning to get restless.
That having a higher minimum-wage than the federal government will produce a bevy of jobs. Especially summer jobs for youths.
NOT!
In fact, NOT TO ANY OF THE ABOVE!
If it is not government over reach, taxation and regulation, it is the stratification of the people that is really troubling.
Many cities that once had a strong, productive middle-class, are being replaced by yuppies and the Stuff White Liberal People Like crowd. It is better know as the SWPL crowd, but here at RVFTLC headquarters, I just add the obvious liberal to make sure all understand. Which leaves a lot of upper middle-class and poor people. One term is gentrification. It would not be a bad thing if some middle-class working people were part of the gentrification process. But the whole idea keep them out as well as the poor people. Thus what is left is something that I do not remember growing up in the Los Angeles area.
A real class structure.
Add to that the replacement of the defense industry with entertainment and the fairy tale is complete.
And while I just gave some of the facts, I want to look at solutions. California needs real leadership. Not political only but business, spiritual and yes leadership from the bottom up.
It is not Wall Street vs Main Street so much as reality vs fairy tale.
A government as big as it is in California is bound to fall under its own weight.
Regulations will eventually drive even big companies away.
High Taxes, well as I noted, if you believe that only one percent of Americans are wealthy, there are just so many to go around even here in the once Golden State. And if they are imposed on businesses, guess what? WE will enjoy paying more for products.
Gee, isn't this fairy tale fun kiddies?
No it is not.
But if we don't want to end up a basket case like Greece, the people need to rise up at the ballot box in November as a start. We can not keep voting the same dim bulbs that keep digging the ditch deeper.
What we need, and I am serious, is s 21st century Walt Disney.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Can The Political Class Leave My Christmas Alone?!
I should be ecstatic that the Iowa Republican caucuses are just around the corner on January 3, 2012. And the New Hampshire primary on January 10, 2012.
But I am not.
Why you may ask?
Because all this political talk is ruining the Christmas season.
I mean, for many people who take their politics way too seriously, again not that I do not, this is not a great time of year to start getting into discussions about who would make a better Republican presidential candidate. Or even thinking about caucusing or voting literally after the New Year.
But here we are.
Why are we here?
Because a lot of people do not like the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire get to go first in the process. And they are for various reasons to be addressed later in this post.
First, the diversity police hate these states.
According to the 2010 census, Iowa has a population of 3,046,355. Ninety-one percent are White. Five percent are Hispanic. Three percent are Black. The rest of the race stats are here. As for New Hampshire, with a population of 1,316,470, it is even worse. Ninety-three percent are White. Three percent are Hispanic and a little over one percent are Black. Again, the rest of those stats are here.
So, who wants to steal the glory of these two states?
Well, there is always South Carolina. The diversity police should like this state.
A little over 4,625,000 people and only 67% White. Twenty-seven percent Black and a growing five percent Hispanic.
Then there is Florida.
Now there is diversity.
Out of a popluation of a little over 18,801,000, the number of Whites is 75%. Hispanics are at 23% and Blacks make up 16%. Now it is worth looking at these numbers. Yeah, they do not add up but it is because of the way one can be asked what race one is.
For me, I do not care about the whole diversity thing.
What it really comes down to is power.
The larger states of Florida and South Carolina think that they should be determining who the nominee of each political party should be. They are fast-growing states. They have a lot of competing forces. Yada, yada, yada.
Because these states, and throw in Nevada too, want to be the determiners, they keep pushing Iowa and New Hampshire to insure that they will be the firs caucus and primary in the United States.
In my lifetime, the Iowa caucuses have been held in late January or early February, as noted here.
As far as the New Hampshire primary, they have gone from early to mid-March to the bleak winter of early February, again as noted here.
And really, would there have been a different result if some other state ot states got to go first? After all, Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses. And placed a very close second in New Hampshire. Would have Hilary Clinton won the Democrat nomination if Florida got to go first? And there is the Republican split decision in 2008. The Rev. Mike Huckabee winning the Iowa Caucus and Sen. John "F--- You" McCain winning the New Hampshire primary. Does anyone really think that the former New York City mayor, Rudy Guiliani, would have won Florida if it went first?
I think it is time to let these states have their place in the sun every four years. Let them be the first in the nation to kick off the presidential primary season.
But not at Christmas time.
We all need a break from the politics of the day. We need to be able to get together with family and friends. Some we do not agree a wit on politics. We need to spend this time of the year reflecting on how we can do, as individuals, making life better and easier for someone else. We need to reflect on the year coming to an end and what we will do in the upcoming year. We need to be able to do this politics-free.
But the political class is just saying no. It is saying, you must endure our circus show during the Christmas season. You will endure some candidate coming out wishing you a Merry Christmas. You will enjoy that bit of insincerity.
No, I will not. Does not mean I will not write about it. But I will not enjoy the political class trying to harsh my mellow on this Christmas season, once again.
But I am not.
Why you may ask?
Because all this political talk is ruining the Christmas season.
I mean, for many people who take their politics way too seriously, again not that I do not, this is not a great time of year to start getting into discussions about who would make a better Republican presidential candidate. Or even thinking about caucusing or voting literally after the New Year.
But here we are.
Why are we here?
Because a lot of people do not like the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire get to go first in the process. And they are for various reasons to be addressed later in this post.
First, the diversity police hate these states.
According to the 2010 census, Iowa has a population of 3,046,355. Ninety-one percent are White. Five percent are Hispanic. Three percent are Black. The rest of the race stats are here. As for New Hampshire, with a population of 1,316,470, it is even worse. Ninety-three percent are White. Three percent are Hispanic and a little over one percent are Black. Again, the rest of those stats are here.
So, who wants to steal the glory of these two states?
Well, there is always South Carolina. The diversity police should like this state.
A little over 4,625,000 people and only 67% White. Twenty-seven percent Black and a growing five percent Hispanic.
Then there is Florida.
Now there is diversity.
Out of a popluation of a little over 18,801,000, the number of Whites is 75%. Hispanics are at 23% and Blacks make up 16%. Now it is worth looking at these numbers. Yeah, they do not add up but it is because of the way one can be asked what race one is.
For me, I do not care about the whole diversity thing.
What it really comes down to is power.
The larger states of Florida and South Carolina think that they should be determining who the nominee of each political party should be. They are fast-growing states. They have a lot of competing forces. Yada, yada, yada.
Because these states, and throw in Nevada too, want to be the determiners, they keep pushing Iowa and New Hampshire to insure that they will be the firs caucus and primary in the United States.
In my lifetime, the Iowa caucuses have been held in late January or early February, as noted here.
As far as the New Hampshire primary, they have gone from early to mid-March to the bleak winter of early February, again as noted here.
And really, would there have been a different result if some other state ot states got to go first? After all, Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses. And placed a very close second in New Hampshire. Would have Hilary Clinton won the Democrat nomination if Florida got to go first? And there is the Republican split decision in 2008. The Rev. Mike Huckabee winning the Iowa Caucus and Sen. John "F--- You" McCain winning the New Hampshire primary. Does anyone really think that the former New York City mayor, Rudy Guiliani, would have won Florida if it went first?
I think it is time to let these states have their place in the sun every four years. Let them be the first in the nation to kick off the presidential primary season.
But not at Christmas time.
We all need a break from the politics of the day. We need to be able to get together with family and friends. Some we do not agree a wit on politics. We need to spend this time of the year reflecting on how we can do, as individuals, making life better and easier for someone else. We need to reflect on the year coming to an end and what we will do in the upcoming year. We need to be able to do this politics-free.
But the political class is just saying no. It is saying, you must endure our circus show during the Christmas season. You will endure some candidate coming out wishing you a Merry Christmas. You will enjoy that bit of insincerity.
No, I will not. Does not mean I will not write about it. But I will not enjoy the political class trying to harsh my mellow on this Christmas season, once again.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
A Rocker's View Of Conservatives Needs A Conservative Primer
I start this post pointing out that your humble blogger loves rock music. Hard rock, metal, alternative, whatever it is called now a days. From such seminal bands as Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin, to the 1980s and Iron Maiden, Metallica, to the 90s and Nirvana, and alt bands to the 2000s and bands like Rage Against The Machine, Rise Against I have followed the music with great love and interest.
So, I recently saw the Foo Fighters in concert at the once Fabulous Forum in Inglewood, California. There is a post on why it is the once Fabulous Forum.
But in today's Left Angeles Times was The Red Bulletin, the magazine put out by Red Bull.
On the front cover was my man, the front-man of the Foos, Dave Grohl. And the accompanying article about him and music.
In the article, definitely worth the read, Mr. Grohl is asked about the Dear Leader, President Obama. And I knew that I would not be happy with the answer. And he was asked if he would support the Dear Leader, President Obama's reelection. And I was even less happy with the Q and A:
If he asks, will you support him in his 2012 re-election bid?
Absolutely. He’s got the toughest job on earth. I would hate to hand the administration over to another party that is just focused on corporation, greed and money. You know, I’m a fun, peace-loving guy, but sometimes the right wing gets a little too selfish.
Well, he is not downright insulting to conservatives and in a way just rather around the edges of grasping legitimate policy differences between conservatives and modern liberals.
I don't take my politics from celebrity whether they be on the left or the right. Many do and that is tragic.
So, in reading that part of the interview with Mr. Grohl, I find it is time for what I will call a conservative primer. It is what basically conservatives believe. And it is more personally what I believe as a conservative. Again, this is what I understand makes a conservative person.
First, a conservative believes in personal responsibility.
We all have to take an inventory of ourselves from time to time. Whether we are doing the right things in life or not. It is not just from a religious but a moral point of view. We believe that when one does wrong in life, there are consequences. But that there is also an understanding of the wrong and a way to change. Thus I, for one, believe in the ability of people to change based on an acceptance of personal responsibility. It also extends to our relationship with one another. It means not being a jerk to someone else. It means to be treated the way we or I would want to be treated.
Conservatives believe in thrift.
What that means is that we do not believe in living beyond one's means. What we have been told seemingly throughout my lifetime is that we can live beyond our means and that we should not want but demand the best in life. Thus I try to shop at the market with coupons. Look for the bargains. Don't go to Nordstrom's, but will go to Nordstrom Rack. Look for things on sale. Put a lot of money down on a home as we did and be able to prepare for the rainy day. We are not always good at that, which leads me back to accepting responsibility when we do not.
Conservatives do believe in taking care of one another. But not at government expense. We believe in the power of charities and faith-based institutions to provide for those less fortunate. We also believe in personal involvement to that end. It is not just about writing a check and then doing nothing more. Many of us do volunteer our time. Two years ago, Mrs. RVFTLC and I volunteered to serve Thanksgiving to those less fortunate in El Monte, California at our church's outreach. And we serve on the board of our Transitional Housing program at our church. It for those addicts who are trying to get back into society. In other words, we put our money where our mouths are.
In terms of government, we conservatives do believe in small, limited government at all levels. And we believe in bottom-up government. We believe that government at the most local of level can meet the needs of the people best. That the more government is centralized, whether in Washington, D. C. or state capitals, it is more removed from the very people it is to serve. Small, limited government is not as susceptible to the corruption and excess that big, unregulated government is.
We conservatives value tradition. But not just for the sake of tradition. And we are open to necessary change. Not change for the sake of it. Or to create some social experimentation.
Thus we look to history as our guide. Why we accept and respect how our Great Land came to be is because we study the history. From the first settlers. Those who landed on Plymouth Rock. Those that wrote the Mayflower Compact. Those that began the eventual United States of America. Those that wrote the most amazing document, the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation. The Constitution.
The constitution is an amazing document for it sets a delineation of power between three co-equal branches of government. The legislative, executive and judicial branches. All are to respect one another.
And the constitution is always amendable. But not made easy to do so. It is intentionally made hard to not have bad amendments adopted willy nilly. Thus it places a great deal of burden on the legislative and executive branches. The judicial, at its best, simply interprets the constitution and sometimes acts as a referee.
Conservatism is not perfect. We have made mistakes and have to reflect on those errors.
One that I can think of his how most people that identified themselves as conservatives opposed entering World War II. Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Many conservatives did not want to engage in a foreign war. Many thought that World War I was one we did not have to be in.
But when we were attacked that Sunday morning in December, it changed everything. Thoughtful conservatives changed their mind and recognized that the Axis powers needed to be defeated. What separated conservatives from many liberals was the recognition that there was another evil that needed to be defeated. That other evil was communism.
And the Cold War was born.
Conservatives did not have a solid voice in the defeat of the communists really until Ronald Reagan became president. He laid it all our there for the world to see. He said bluntly that communism was an evil empire. And that it would be defeated. And for the most part, it has been. Even in Red China, what passes for communism would have Chairman Mao rolling in his grave. The few outposts of the brutality that is communism are on their last legs. Hopefully in our lifetimes.
What I have written is really a short primer on what it is that conservatives believe. It is to respond to people that have a negative, not necessarily informed view of what it means to be a conservative.
And it is true. On the sidebar of this blog, I believe that to be a conservative is to be a real rebel. Especially on the college campuses throughout the United States. To many of one's friends and relatives. it is saying the the prevailing liberal world view is what is wrong. It is taking on what has really become the establishment.
I do not expect Dave Grohl or any other rocker to get it. I think that he knows a little about politics like many people. And unlike some on the left, I do not believe that he is trying to intentionally offend a possibly large part of the fan base.
But in reading his otherwise excellent interview, it was this I feel the need to speak up for and about conservatism. Albeit very briefly.
So, I owe a big thanks to Mr. Grohl. And while we strongly disagree about politics, I still love the Foo Fighters and the great rock 'n roll you put out there.
So, I recently saw the Foo Fighters in concert at the once Fabulous Forum in Inglewood, California. There is a post on why it is the once Fabulous Forum.
But in today's Left Angeles Times was The Red Bulletin, the magazine put out by Red Bull.
On the front cover was my man, the front-man of the Foos, Dave Grohl. And the accompanying article about him and music.
In the article, definitely worth the read, Mr. Grohl is asked about the Dear Leader, President Obama. And I knew that I would not be happy with the answer. And he was asked if he would support the Dear Leader, President Obama's reelection. And I was even less happy with the Q and A:
If he asks, will you support him in his 2012 re-election bid?
Absolutely. He’s got the toughest job on earth. I would hate to hand the administration over to another party that is just focused on corporation, greed and money. You know, I’m a fun, peace-loving guy, but sometimes the right wing gets a little too selfish.
Well, he is not downright insulting to conservatives and in a way just rather around the edges of grasping legitimate policy differences between conservatives and modern liberals.
I don't take my politics from celebrity whether they be on the left or the right. Many do and that is tragic.
So, in reading that part of the interview with Mr. Grohl, I find it is time for what I will call a conservative primer. It is what basically conservatives believe. And it is more personally what I believe as a conservative. Again, this is what I understand makes a conservative person.
First, a conservative believes in personal responsibility.
We all have to take an inventory of ourselves from time to time. Whether we are doing the right things in life or not. It is not just from a religious but a moral point of view. We believe that when one does wrong in life, there are consequences. But that there is also an understanding of the wrong and a way to change. Thus I, for one, believe in the ability of people to change based on an acceptance of personal responsibility. It also extends to our relationship with one another. It means not being a jerk to someone else. It means to be treated the way we or I would want to be treated.
Conservatives believe in thrift.
What that means is that we do not believe in living beyond one's means. What we have been told seemingly throughout my lifetime is that we can live beyond our means and that we should not want but demand the best in life. Thus I try to shop at the market with coupons. Look for the bargains. Don't go to Nordstrom's, but will go to Nordstrom Rack. Look for things on sale. Put a lot of money down on a home as we did and be able to prepare for the rainy day. We are not always good at that, which leads me back to accepting responsibility when we do not.
Conservatives do believe in taking care of one another. But not at government expense. We believe in the power of charities and faith-based institutions to provide for those less fortunate. We also believe in personal involvement to that end. It is not just about writing a check and then doing nothing more. Many of us do volunteer our time. Two years ago, Mrs. RVFTLC and I volunteered to serve Thanksgiving to those less fortunate in El Monte, California at our church's outreach. And we serve on the board of our Transitional Housing program at our church. It for those addicts who are trying to get back into society. In other words, we put our money where our mouths are.
In terms of government, we conservatives do believe in small, limited government at all levels. And we believe in bottom-up government. We believe that government at the most local of level can meet the needs of the people best. That the more government is centralized, whether in Washington, D. C. or state capitals, it is more removed from the very people it is to serve. Small, limited government is not as susceptible to the corruption and excess that big, unregulated government is.
We conservatives value tradition. But not just for the sake of tradition. And we are open to necessary change. Not change for the sake of it. Or to create some social experimentation.
Thus we look to history as our guide. Why we accept and respect how our Great Land came to be is because we study the history. From the first settlers. Those who landed on Plymouth Rock. Those that wrote the Mayflower Compact. Those that began the eventual United States of America. Those that wrote the most amazing document, the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation. The Constitution.
The constitution is an amazing document for it sets a delineation of power between three co-equal branches of government. The legislative, executive and judicial branches. All are to respect one another.
And the constitution is always amendable. But not made easy to do so. It is intentionally made hard to not have bad amendments adopted willy nilly. Thus it places a great deal of burden on the legislative and executive branches. The judicial, at its best, simply interprets the constitution and sometimes acts as a referee.
Conservatism is not perfect. We have made mistakes and have to reflect on those errors.
One that I can think of his how most people that identified themselves as conservatives opposed entering World War II. Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Many conservatives did not want to engage in a foreign war. Many thought that World War I was one we did not have to be in.
But when we were attacked that Sunday morning in December, it changed everything. Thoughtful conservatives changed their mind and recognized that the Axis powers needed to be defeated. What separated conservatives from many liberals was the recognition that there was another evil that needed to be defeated. That other evil was communism.
And the Cold War was born.
Conservatives did not have a solid voice in the defeat of the communists really until Ronald Reagan became president. He laid it all our there for the world to see. He said bluntly that communism was an evil empire. And that it would be defeated. And for the most part, it has been. Even in Red China, what passes for communism would have Chairman Mao rolling in his grave. The few outposts of the brutality that is communism are on their last legs. Hopefully in our lifetimes.
What I have written is really a short primer on what it is that conservatives believe. It is to respond to people that have a negative, not necessarily informed view of what it means to be a conservative.
And it is true. On the sidebar of this blog, I believe that to be a conservative is to be a real rebel. Especially on the college campuses throughout the United States. To many of one's friends and relatives. it is saying the the prevailing liberal world view is what is wrong. It is taking on what has really become the establishment.
I do not expect Dave Grohl or any other rocker to get it. I think that he knows a little about politics like many people. And unlike some on the left, I do not believe that he is trying to intentionally offend a possibly large part of the fan base.
But in reading his otherwise excellent interview, it was this I feel the need to speak up for and about conservatism. Albeit very briefly.
So, I owe a big thanks to Mr. Grohl. And while we strongly disagree about politics, I still love the Foo Fighters and the great rock 'n roll you put out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)