In the year since the last general election, the national media has been working overtime hashing over what to them is a major challenge, is Sarah Palin going to run for president or not? ‘Course Sara just smiles coyly, and leaves the possibility open. I don’t have an inside line to the Palin organization, so like everybody else I can only guess, but as a "gut feeling", I’d say yes, she probably will run in 2012. (The potential for error on a wild guess of this nature is rather large you understand.)
When John McCain announced that Sarah would be his running mate, a lot of quite predictable things happened. Most of the country was left scratching their heads and saying "Sarah who?" Following their past experiences with women as VP candidates, the Democrats snickered and went on planning Mr. O’s "change", and Hillary probably wept a bit as well. From the halls of the RNC came the sounds of weeping and wailing, along with great gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair. And of course the mainstream media immediately began bashing the "Hick Chick" from the wild and wooly west who had never attended an eastern Ivy League finishing school. Sarah on the other hand gathered up a new wardrobe (as women are prone to do), and proceeded to make an acceptance speech that completely electrified a large part of the nations Republican voters. When the public reaction to that speech was recognized, she suddenly became a major threat to established politicians everywhere, and "everybody" was out for her head, including the media with their vicious and completely uncalled for attacks on her family. (Attacks that continue to this day.) When the dust settled following the election, Sarah left the questions about her political aspirations unanswered, and the door open, but now she seems to have made her first public move.
Sarah Palin has launched an effort to become the leader of the Tea Party movement, a move with a major political upside for the former governor. Her positioning could secure the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, which she is widely believed to be eyeing. And the Tea Party is a natural for her, where her populist anti-Washington rhetoric and working mom image, have made her a favorite since the grass-roots activists on the scene last year. The recent National Tea Party Convention in Nashville came under fire because of it’s high prices comparatively small turnout, but the real convention occurred on September 12, 2009 when hundreds of thousands of ordinary people from all across America marched on the U.S. Capitol, saying "No" to Mr. Obama and the loss of liberty that accompanies big government. The real Tea Party convention occurs all across the country, when small groups of people come together at town meetings to ask questions of their elected officials – questions those officials are often unable or unwilling to answer. And those people are the ones most attracted to Sarah’s possible campaign. Interestingly enough, 35 percent of independents have a favorable impression of the Tea Party movement, as do an amazing three-quarters of Republicans. Palin also reinforced the impression that the Tea Partiers are the most desired bloc of the conservative electorate when she turned down an invitation to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference, a "must-attend" for establishment conservatives and Republicans. Instead, she chose to speak at the Nashville TEA Convention.
But embracing the movement could be dangerous, as the rather chaotic collection of local groups making up the movement may not accept her… or anyone else… as their leader. But still, Palin has endeared herself to a lot of tea partiers by endorsing several movement candidates against GOP establishment candidates. If she accepts the leadership she also has to accept the risks of a movement that is so decentralized that there is little accountability, no rules and no agenda other than anger with the establishment. Yet that anti-establishment anger dates clear back to Teddy Roosevelt’s "Bull Moose" party, continued through the days of George Wallace and Ross Perot, and was last seen with the Ron Paul campaign. And the dissatisfaction with business as usual gets bigger and bigger every year as the mainstream Republicans and Democrats meld into a single "Big Government" party.
For the tea party to be successful, it needs a leader. And I think that Sarah Palin with her "real life ideals" could well become that leader. Run Sarah, Run!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
State of the Union
I read the text of Mr. Obama’s recent State of the Union speech, and I’ve been following much of the political commentary about it as well. As to be expected, the news writers are in a quandary, the Democrats think he’s wonderful and the Republicans are still fuming. The moderates on the other hand are looking at things with a raised eyebrow. The far right and far left are still raging at each other about almost everything, as is usual. Mr. Obama once again demonstrated that he’s an accomplished speaker, and that his teleprompter crew is getting pretty experienced. His speech writers didn’t seem to know just what it is he wants to accomplish, and I sort of wonder if even he knows what he wants. So what did he have to say? Not much really, if you remove the platitudes, vague promises, and Bush bashing.
The Constitution directs the President to inform Congress from time to time, as to the “State of the Union”. From this, I would assume that Congress was to be told about whatever condition we find ourselves, as in “we’re broke and in serious trouble”, or “we’re winning/losing the war”, or even “we’re rich, famous, and everybody loves us”. But it seems over the last century this annual address has become little more than a platform for the President to tell us about his political agenda. In this case, and not surprisingly, Mr. O said a lot in the State of the Union speech… well, he did use a lot of words. But what did he actually propose? Pretty much the same things we’ve been hearing since the campaign I'm afraid, that the government creates jobs, the government needs to control healthcare, and that the government needs to spend a lot of money on education. But it was notable in proposing a (partial, and rather small) spending freeze “next year” while proposing a massive government “investment” in assorted left wing programs this year.
Mr. Obama claims that “…there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. And we’re on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.” Of course I can’t refute his numbers, but you might note that while official unemployment still hovers above 10% (and the latest official "corrected" numbers are over 20%), most of those jobs he speaks of are government jobs, not “productive jobs” that increase our nation’s wealth, but rather these are positions that spend our tax dollars indefinitely. (I will applaud the “cops, firefighters, first responders” part though.) Now if he could figure out a way to increase the number of health professionals in the country, perhaps a little more competition in the industry would decrease the cost of health care, without a government takeover?
He also said that: “Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let’s try common sense.” Okay so far, even though his proposed budget will increase the deficit by roughly three trillion dollars… “…to give our people the government they deserve.” Well, we’ve got the government we deserve I think, or at least we shouldn't complain as we keep reelecting the same bunch of crooks to office, decade after decade. In his speech, Mr. Obama did manage to say one thing about the government we deserve that I can agree with. That was: “Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.” Americans are a very tough and resilient people after all, and certainly no stranger to either strife or hardship. No foreign power has ever managed to break us, and many have tried. And I fully agree with him that our people deserve a government that matches that resiliency. But that government must be one that encourages productivity and not dependency, honesty not corruption, innovation not stagnation, and thrift not waste. It must not be a government that encourages fear in our citizenry, as we’ve seen happen so much over the last few years. Today we face seemingly insurmountable difficulties that must be solved if we hope to continue as a great nation, and those solutions are only going to come from a government and a people that live in the real world, not in vague far left socialist dreams.
And finally he said, to my supprise, "God bless America". Again, I'll agree, and add "If he can still find us that is…"
The Constitution directs the President to inform Congress from time to time, as to the “State of the Union”. From this, I would assume that Congress was to be told about whatever condition we find ourselves, as in “we’re broke and in serious trouble”, or “we’re winning/losing the war”, or even “we’re rich, famous, and everybody loves us”. But it seems over the last century this annual address has become little more than a platform for the President to tell us about his political agenda. In this case, and not surprisingly, Mr. O said a lot in the State of the Union speech… well, he did use a lot of words. But what did he actually propose? Pretty much the same things we’ve been hearing since the campaign I'm afraid, that the government creates jobs, the government needs to control healthcare, and that the government needs to spend a lot of money on education. But it was notable in proposing a (partial, and rather small) spending freeze “next year” while proposing a massive government “investment” in assorted left wing programs this year.
Mr. Obama claims that “…there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. And we’re on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.” Of course I can’t refute his numbers, but you might note that while official unemployment still hovers above 10% (and the latest official "corrected" numbers are over 20%), most of those jobs he speaks of are government jobs, not “productive jobs” that increase our nation’s wealth, but rather these are positions that spend our tax dollars indefinitely. (I will applaud the “cops, firefighters, first responders” part though.) Now if he could figure out a way to increase the number of health professionals in the country, perhaps a little more competition in the industry would decrease the cost of health care, without a government takeover?
He also said that: “Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let’s try common sense.” Okay so far, even though his proposed budget will increase the deficit by roughly three trillion dollars… “…to give our people the government they deserve.” Well, we’ve got the government we deserve I think, or at least we shouldn't complain as we keep reelecting the same bunch of crooks to office, decade after decade. In his speech, Mr. Obama did manage to say one thing about the government we deserve that I can agree with. That was: “Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.” Americans are a very tough and resilient people after all, and certainly no stranger to either strife or hardship. No foreign power has ever managed to break us, and many have tried. And I fully agree with him that our people deserve a government that matches that resiliency. But that government must be one that encourages productivity and not dependency, honesty not corruption, innovation not stagnation, and thrift not waste. It must not be a government that encourages fear in our citizenry, as we’ve seen happen so much over the last few years. Today we face seemingly insurmountable difficulties that must be solved if we hope to continue as a great nation, and those solutions are only going to come from a government and a people that live in the real world, not in vague far left socialist dreams.
And finally he said, to my supprise, "God bless America". Again, I'll agree, and add "If he can still find us that is…"
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
A challange
Socialism is for ants and bees, it’s not for people.
On Feb. 4, 1779, Capt. John Paul Jones of the fledgling Continental Navy took command of a former French merchant ship, the somewhat elderly “Duc de Duras”, as arranged with the French government by Continental Congress's Commissioner to France, Benjamin Franklin. Jones armed the ship, commissioned her as an American warship, and renamed her “Bonhomme Richard” in honor of Franklin’s pen name. While sailing the North Sea off Britain’s Flamborough Head on Sept. 23, 1779, Richard encountered the nearly new Royal Navy 44 gun frigate HMS Serapis, and a particularly nasty four hour sea battle ensued. Outmaneuvered and badly outgunned by the faster British cruiser, Richard was soon severely battered, on fire, and in sinking condition. Jones refused the first surrender demand, allegedly replying, “I have not yet begun to fight!” It’s also been reported that when Richard’s flag was shot away, the Serapis’ Captain, Richard Pearson, inquired as to whether or not Jones had struck his colors, Jones shouted back, “I may sink, but I'll be damned if I strike!” Bonhomme Richard (the first of five so-named American warships) did sink the next morning, but not before Pearson himself surrendered the Serapis (believed to be “the first time in naval history that the colors are surrendered to a sinking ship”), and Jones, destined to become “the Father of the American Navy,” had transferred his flag to his newly captured prize.
As an old Airman (and in the spirit of “interservice rivalry”), I usually refrain from giving the Navy and their fighting tradition very much credit lest they find their hats no longer fit. But they do have a long history of prevailing against insurmountable odds. One of the most spectacular instances being the Battle off Samar in October of 1944, when four US Navy Destroyers quite literally charged an entire Japanese Battle Fleet! The ‘Cans got the worst of it of course, but Japanese Admiral Kurita, thinking those feisty destroyers had to be heavy cruisers, believed he had run headlong into the entire American 3rd Fleet, ordered a retreat, thereby loosing the battle, and not long afterwards the entire war.
On more than one occasion in our Navy's (and our nation’s) history, guts and audacity have carried the day against all odds.
Historians have long argued over Capt. Jones character and personality, but they generally describe him as courageous, sometimes brash and violent, honest, and an honorable man who always tried to do what he believed to be “right”. From the sounds of things, I’ll guess that he wasn’t a “quitter” either. (Sounds a lot like many American fighting men.) I’ll note that many of the characteristics attributed to Jones could be found in many Americans of that time, and a good many more over the next two centuries. Unfortunately, those traits seem to be dying out in of our modern America.
If you want evidence, fast forward to the 1950’s and 60’s, with particular attention to the “protesters” of the Vietnam War era. Both the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, were highly unpopular in America, caused a lot of casualties among the troops, and were fought by America for no other reason than to “halt the spread of Communism”. And both wars had their protesters of course. But the generation that fought in Korea were hardly affluent or “gentlemen of leisure”, having been born during the depression and had grown up during World War II. War was not their favorite sport I’ll wager, but when the nation called, they responded. The Vietnam generation (of which I am one), is an entirely different matter. The youth of the 60’s, having grown up in the “Golden Age” of the 1950’s, were the most pampered and affluent in our nations history, a "spoiled" generation that prized personal comfort and convenience above almost anything else. The prospect that their pleasant lives might be interrupted, or even endangered by service in Vietnam was intolerable! Not all of course, some of us did serve in Vietnam, again and again and again. (You might also note that the riotous protests disappeared shortly after the draft ended.) Yet even today many claim that the “moral outrage” of those protesters was honorable because the war was “unjust”. (Humm… does anyone besides me remember the hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese tortured or killed by communist “revolutionaries”? How about the post-war “re-education camps”. Or the more than a million “boat people” struggling to escape their communist masters?)
Historians have long argued over Capt. Jones character and personality, but they generally describe him as courageous, sometimes brash and violent, honest, and an honorable man who always tried to do what he believed to be “right”. From the sounds of things, I’ll guess that he wasn’t a “quitter” either. (Sounds a lot like many American fighting men.) I’ll note that many of the characteristics attributed to Jones could be found in many Americans of that time, and a good many more over the next two centuries. Unfortunately, those traits seem to be dying out in of our modern America.
If you want evidence, fast forward to the 1950’s and 60’s, with particular attention to the “protesters” of the Vietnam War era. Both the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, were highly unpopular in America, caused a lot of casualties among the troops, and were fought by America for no other reason than to “halt the spread of Communism”. And both wars had their protesters of course. But the generation that fought in Korea were hardly affluent or “gentlemen of leisure”, having been born during the depression and had grown up during World War II. War was not their favorite sport I’ll wager, but when the nation called, they responded. The Vietnam generation (of which I am one), is an entirely different matter. The youth of the 60’s, having grown up in the “Golden Age” of the 1950’s, were the most pampered and affluent in our nations history, a "spoiled" generation that prized personal comfort and convenience above almost anything else. The prospect that their pleasant lives might be interrupted, or even endangered by service in Vietnam was intolerable! Not all of course, some of us did serve in Vietnam, again and again and again. (You might also note that the riotous protests disappeared shortly after the draft ended.) Yet even today many claim that the “moral outrage” of those protesters was honorable because the war was “unjust”. (Humm… does anyone besides me remember the hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese tortured or killed by communist “revolutionaries”? How about the post-war “re-education camps”. Or the more than a million “boat people” struggling to escape their communist masters?)
The hard core of those radical, communist admiring protesters of the 60’s are still with us today. Only now they’re no longer wild-eyed shaggy haired students inciting the murder of police officers, urban riots, school bombings, and the occasional bank robbery. Instead they’re now the leaders of our political far left, a far left that has hijacked most of the Democratic Party, and are using that medium (with the willing assistance of the Obama / Reid / Pelosi triad) to spread division among our people and their slathering their lies upon a gullible public, in nothing less than a deliberate attack on our Constitution and our way of life. Their goal is nothing less than forcing us to become a Soviet style “United Socialist States of Amerika”, naturally with themselves as our “enlightened” rulers.
And what is my point? Well, I’m one person with a mission, that of using my First Amendment rights to protect and preserve our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the United States of America, and our freedom. It’s been a long time since I was a soldier dedicated to the defense of this nation, but, while I may no longer be up to grabbing a musket and manning the barricades, I, like Horatius at the Bridge, will not surrender the country that I spent so long defending, nor the future of my grandchildren, to any wanna-be dictators, home grown or otherwise.
A friend of mine, another aging warrior from the cold war days, quite succinctly explained his view, and I can certainly agree with him. He said: “In a nutshell, I agree that the loony left needs to be squashed, and I believe that it will. We’ve done our part, and my torch is now in the hands of my four sons. If I’ve brought them up correctly, then they will do the right thing, and they will pass the torch to my grandsons. That’s how it’s supposed to happen, and I trust that it will.” I pray that Jack is correct, but for the moment, and while I’m still somewhat capable, I’ll continue to hold my own torch aloft thank-you, and I trust that my sons have their own torch's. And for now, while I, like John Paul Jones, might go down to defeat in battle, I’ll be dammed if I’ll strike the colors.
Care to join hands with me in this battle? Joined together, the righteous anger of a betrayed American citizenry could readily crush the power of the loony left for all time. You might also keep in mind that united we stand, and that divided… we fall.
And what is my point? Well, I’m one person with a mission, that of using my First Amendment rights to protect and preserve our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the United States of America, and our freedom. It’s been a long time since I was a soldier dedicated to the defense of this nation, but, while I may no longer be up to grabbing a musket and manning the barricades, I, like Horatius at the Bridge, will not surrender the country that I spent so long defending, nor the future of my grandchildren, to any wanna-be dictators, home grown or otherwise.
A friend of mine, another aging warrior from the cold war days, quite succinctly explained his view, and I can certainly agree with him. He said: “In a nutshell, I agree that the loony left needs to be squashed, and I believe that it will. We’ve done our part, and my torch is now in the hands of my four sons. If I’ve brought them up correctly, then they will do the right thing, and they will pass the torch to my grandsons. That’s how it’s supposed to happen, and I trust that it will.” I pray that Jack is correct, but for the moment, and while I’m still somewhat capable, I’ll continue to hold my own torch aloft thank-you, and I trust that my sons have their own torch's. And for now, while I, like John Paul Jones, might go down to defeat in battle, I’ll be dammed if I’ll strike the colors.
Care to join hands with me in this battle? Joined together, the righteous anger of a betrayed American citizenry could readily crush the power of the loony left for all time. You might also keep in mind that united we stand, and that divided… we fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)