Carlson’s Perspective

The Day After: we are outnumbered, we are sick

Last night, as the results from Virginia, Ohio, and Florida began to near the final tally, I had a cadaverous revelation – I realized that my America had let out its last independent breath. Now, upon its deathbed, the country that has given me every hope, every dream, and every memory has volunteered to surrender its independence for the sake of consistent, artificial breath. No longer will my countrymen’s lungs be filled with deserved oxygen, procured from the actions of the individual spirit, instead, attached to the grey, metallic façade of tyranny’s spout, we will be forced to breathe the toxic fumes of government dependence. Last night’s results have set in my mind a disgraceful thought – democracy has failed, our system is flawed, and the United States is no longer the last great seat of freedom.

With last night’s referendum the New World has turned away from its exceptionalism, towards the drab dabber of the European way. Instead of “every man for himself” we are now being given “every man for each other.” Instead of unbound independence we now will have, unchecked, equality imposed on every front. I have always held true that all men are created equal, but after that conception, it is the duty of man to rise and fall by his own accord. Now, scared, panic, uninformed, moronic, and bigoted, the American people have crawled to the Dear Leader and begged him, like pathetic children who have thrown themselves on the floor in tantrum, to give them more. Give, give, give, want, want, want – those are the orders of the day. The president and his corrupt Democratic party will, like the inherent virus of their ideology, suck dry the life blood of our great land until not even they can slurp another drop of un-earned sustenance.

Last night was a pathetic, empty showing by the American people, and I have never been so disappointed in my life. 2008 was a desperate fluke, 2012 is a referendum. Our founding fathers established a political system that attempted to roll the political ball half way down the hill, balancing this great kinetic force at the mountain’s side like an independent Sisyphus, as our state attempted to grant a political voice to those who deserve such a voice, to those who can manage, responsibly such a power, and to those who are actual invested in the state. Unfortunately, with every passing generation, our system moves further and further away to this earned mandate of the vote to a cringing system of voting by default. The lines at the polls were full, last night, not of those who have vested countless hours in studying the issues and calculating their ballot, but by those who have done NOTHING to generate an authentic political stance. The biddies, bros, gangbangers, beggars, and fools who cast their vote had not the best interest of our state in mind, or the best interest of our revolution in mind, or the best interest of the future generations in mind when they cast their ballot. Instead, this political swine cared and thought of ONE thing, and one thing alone – how can they best abuse this system for themselves. In this moment of greed, this despotic class of social indigents dealt a deathblow to our great land. We are no longer a nation of the individual and the future; they said with their equal voice, we are a nation of the mass and the here and now.

I believe that all men are created equal. I believe you make you bed, and you sleep in it. Barack Obama, on the other hand, looks at the bed he has made, sees he has done a horrible job, and immediately begins roaming around for another bed to sleep in. This sounds great to the dependent class, they need not make their own bed, and when they are tired they simply take the made bed of another. Unfortunately, how long can this system persist; it is only natural that eventually we will run out of fresh beds, as those who steal simply drive away those who make. We are at that tipping point – for four years, the working class has generated great wealth in a time of crisis while the dependent class, led by the great spender in the White House has increased the deficit by nearly six trillion dollars. Under the Dear Leader, the amount of food stamp users has nearly doubled, the rate of poverty has hit 15%, and unemployment is higher than when he first took office. How is that a record of success? How can a failed presidency survive such a dismal record?

On top of the president’s failed domestic policy, he has also set the world on fire! The Middle East, right now, is at a tipping point with Iran only months away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, North Korea rattling sabers with the South, and China and Russia continually challenging the free world, both militarily and diplomatically, at every turn. The United States was once the center of global peace, liberty, and freedom – today, we are the forbearer of instability, creating chaos in north and west Africa, allowing terrorism to flourish along the Islamic ring of fire, and by allowing Syria to consume itself. We are not the United States of Ronald Reagan, one that challenged tyranny and demanded the world be free. We are not the United States of George Bush, who saw terror and oppressors and set people free. We are not the America of Woodrow Wilson or FDR who demanded self-determination for all people, regardless of where they lay, who they were, or what they stood for. We are not that shining city on the hill; we are the smoke covered city of the valley, wallowing in self-indulgence and hypocrisy.

Four years ago we danced with the devil; we had our fling with Keynesian Socialism. In 2010, I thought we, as a nation, had come to our senses with the founding of the Tea Party and the re-invigoration of the conservative movement. But, here, in 2012, we relapsed and forgot all the abusive things this horrible man has done to us and our nation. We crawled back into his arms, like a battered woman. He loves us, we say, he won’t do those horrible things again. And, like all battered women who return to their abuser, there is very little chance that we will walk out of this storm unscathed. Let us not forget that Obama ordered the CIA and the military to stand down when Ambassador Stevens and his team were under tire. What makes those voters think he would not do the same in their time of need?

We are a sick country; we have surrendered our independence to the greatest showman in chief. We are outnumbered, we the conservatives.

Mr. President, the blood is in the water

During the CNN Democratic Primary Debate in 2008 then Senator Obama and Senator Clinton went neck in neck debating the different management styles each of the prospective candidates would bring to the White House. Obama assaulted Clinton for being a tyrannical micro manager, and Clinton lambasted Obama for having poor leadership. It was the typical who-has-more-executive experience moment in the campaign. Truth be told, the majority of critics and analysts agreed that Clinton had the most experience, having been the First Lady and managing all that entails (many from the Clinton White House candidly refer to Mrs. Clinton as the other president, citing her close ties to the decision making process). Obama, on the other hand, had never managed a large, complex organization like the White House and the executive administration before. His greatest executive role was working as a community organizer – relatively small organizations with very simple power structures.

During the debate, Obama referred to his style of management that, when being assaulted by Clinton, was defined by delegation of authority, an isolationism of the present from all but “necessary” information, and a laxation that would run contrary to the Bush administration’s “Harvard style.” Obama argued that he need only put the right people in the right role and the government would essentially run itself, leaving him free to proselytize his theories on America and the good nature of his governance. Though the conservatives in America may detest a strong central government, they do not pray for an inefficient one. And, the Obama administration is just, as he said in 2008, de-central and the department heads are free to pursue their own agenda, leaving the President free to plead ignorance and allowing him to say things contrary to reality.

In the past it has been the role of the Press Secretary to convey the position of the president, government, and the United States to the press corps, so the press may do the service of relaying that message to the people. Jay Carney, the President’s current Press Secretary said Thursday that the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials. That is self-evident.” Carney is correct; the attack was a coordinated attack in retaliation to the devastating American attacks on al-Qaeda’s leadership. But, just as the position of the United States was being set, the President flies in the face of his own Press Secretary. The president said the reason behind these attacks, on the eleven year anniversary of the September 11^th attacks, was an obscure film degrading the Prophet Muhammad. Where does the White House stand, where does the administration stand? So far, from the White House the American people have received nothing more than opinions on the matter. Mr. President, this is not the streets of Chicago, you are not organizing a protest or fair – we, as the free world, need to define our stance on this injurious and egregious attack so the world knows we are aware, able, and going to respond to this global threat.

The attacks against Americans and westerners have grown in the face of presidential inaction. Obama is running an administration of slothfulness, not an organization of American productivity and exceptionality. This is not the first time the head of the beast was disconnected from the guise of the body. The president has brought to Washington trickle down inefficiency – take for example Eric Holder and the gun running fiasco! Attorney General Eric Holder, for example, according to President Obama, had no knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious. Holder, the man nominated by Barack Obama, had no “knowledge” of an operation that allowed 2,000 weapons to cross over the border from the United States into Mexico for the purpose of tracking drug gang activity. This operation resulted in the death of American border agent Brian Terry and up to 100 Mexican citizens. It is an operation that was flawed, and one that backfired. Those on the left are more than willing to tout the fact that this operation began under Bush – but they are shy to note that it was HALTED under the previous administration because it was so risky. With that risk in mind, Obama’s government knowingly re-started a program that parallels throwing matches into a gas tank with the hopes of creating just enough light to see how full the tank really is.

When the crisis broke and the American people began to demand answers for this ill-fated operation, there was a call for Eric Holder to resign. After all, it was his department and his responsibility, regardless of whether or not he knew about the operation or not – it is his duty to know of such things. Barack Obama fell in line with Holder, he did not demand Holder resign, he did not demand answers, instead, he took steps to protect the Justice Departments documents from the Congress, who, led by the Republicans, was trying to obtain documents that could shed light of truth upon the whole situation. This week, during an interview with Jorge Ramos, the president pulled out the well-worn card of blame, “Well, first of all, I think it’s important to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program, begun [sic] under the previous administration.” The president blames his predecessor for the failings of his own executive style. How long can the United States bear the burden of this type of governance?

Obama’s relaxed form of government has done a lot more than merely confuse the people through miscommunication and the dodging of responsibility for the actions of his ministers, but his self-admitted relaxed form of governance has done more to harm the international standing of the United States in the world. In this past month Obama and Netanyahu have exchanged verbal blows as Obama continues to slink past Israel in avoiding a firm commitment to the prevention of Iranian nuclear proliferation. At the beginning of the month, Netanyahu confronted the American Ambassador who continued to insist that Israel must continue to wait, that the Jewish state must allow democracy and sanctions to work. Soon afterward, the President reassured his commitment to the nonproliferation of Iran, but at the same time he said that diplomacy is again the only practical rout at this time. This failure to draw a “red line” in the sand forced Netanyahu to play his hand – he indirectly called upon the president, on moral grounds, to define the point the United States will take action. This brought diplomatic relations to an all-time low, bringing the President to childishly avoid talking and meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister.

This move, this snubbing of America’s closest ally is just further proof that Obama has not the maturity and celerity needed to form a solid foreign policy. While the Middle East burns with the Syrian/Iranian crackdown in Syria, while Iran continues to push forward their nuclear agenda with the diplomatic and logistical support of Moscow and Beijing, and while China bullies Japan into a diplomatic corner, it is clear that the President is failing. It is clear that this sluggish style of management and this reactionary foreign policy based not on reality but instead on the ideals of an idealized man is destined to fail. Washington has failed the people of the United States. The world is a much less stable place then it was four years ago. And, on top of these looming current events, the president has managed to destabilize Iraq by withdrawing the occupying force and allowing ethnic tensions to flair. And in Afghanistan, the president has managed to allow the situation to deteriorate – actually withdrawing the remaining 33,000 soldiers in the shadow the growing tensions in the reason.

Many will say that these things would have happened regardless of who was in office, that the situation is not the making of the man. Well, that would be naïve and disrespectful to the institution of American democracy. To say that the man elected to *change* Washington and the world is not responsible for any of his actions undermines the root of our founding, that every man, through his individual actions, deeds, and notions is responsible for his own doings. President Obama has managed to dip out of responsibility long enough, and must be held accountable for what he has done. To say the withdrawal from Iraq played no role in the flaring of ethnic conflict is moot, as the United States acted as mediator during the brewing of strife in 2006 and many other times through the occupation. To say that the president’s “Cairo reset” played no part in the Arab Spring and newer Arab Winter is foolish, as the Arab Spring validated the spread of arms to Islamic radicals who hijacked several of the rebellions and have used the instability to cause chaos in places like Nigeria and Mali – in short, by letting go of the steering wheel, he has said to the lesser, more extreme segments of the world that it is their turn to drive, and drive they have, and drive they will.

We, as Americans, as charter bearers of freedom and liberalism, must never forget that we are the ones destined to set the pace of the world. When our administration and elected officials act with lack and pizzicato we run the risk of stupid mistakes that tarnish the prestige of our state’s status. The world cannot afford a United States set in a path of lazy corruption – a management system that lacks celerity, responsibility, and a grand strategy. The days of an America reacting to the pace, chasing the rabbit must come to an end. Washington must set the pace for the world. We must provide thorough governance both domestically and abroad. The United States must be an example to be followed, not one to be mocked. As long as Barack H. Obama is in the White House, the world will continue to pick away at the power of the west. As long as the great scourge is at the helm of our state we are in danger because the world sees a weak America. As long as this persists the piranhas smell blood in the water – we are damaged and bleeding red the blood of our independence and liberty.

A Letter to a Friend: Role of the United States in the World

map of asia

B_____, you have made an interesting point. Right now America is at a crossroads – both parties have made their mistakes, and now the time for reconciliation has come. Will the United States bow to the Triple Entente of Russia, China, and Iran by no longer offering international leadership, or will we rise once again to lead the free world towards continual prosperity? In the common vernacular of the day, when I speak of the need for American leadership in the world, people ask me, what have they done to us?

On the surface, such a question is relevant, but extremely naïve. Four days ago, a report came to light that noted a Russian attack submarine had patrolled the Gulf of Mexico, in American waters, for several days, escaping detection in a blatant act of defiance, as the most current arms limitation treaty requires both nations to report such an action in advance. Today, the rift between China and Japan, over uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, has reached an all-time high, with Chinese protesters taking to the streets destroying Japanese made cars in response to Japanese nationalists raising the Japanese flag on the island. And, for the past year, Iran and Israel have exchanged inadvertent threats to the other, with Iran’s leaders promising the destruction of the Jewish homeland and Israel promising the possibility of a preemptive strike. At the beginning of his Presidency, Barack Obama went to Cairo and declared a re-set of relations with the world. Unfortunately, the world did not get the memo – the speech merely emboldened the opposition, who viewed the speech as an admission of defeat, and paved the way to our current situation.

In the past four years, the United States has let go of the steering wheel believing that the car will steer itself – regrettably, the car has continued to careen down the highway, and the passengers are fighting for the wheel. Mitt Romney gave a speech in the South Carolina Citadel at the beginning of his campaign where he said, “We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender… An eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is still surrender.” Though the car is flying at incredible speed down this autobahn of unpredictability, the driver should not let go of the wheel – the diver should instead provide inspiration to the frightened passengers, holding onto the wheel with iron resolve. Only when the car is under control can the direction of the vehicle be negotiated – until the driver must be known and must be the leader.

Mitt Romney believes America is the justified leader of the world. The United States, unlike that of any other nation, is rooted in diversity of race, religion, and ideas. No other state in the world retains such a mandate of leadership. Barack Obama believes in the dream of his father – the notion that the world should rise against such a sanction and attempt to strangle all that makes America a possibility. Yes, our state has made mistakes, yes, we may not be perfect. But, I implore everyone to study the alternative – which of the world’s options best suits the betterment of man: the tyranny of Tehran, the monstrosity of Moscow, or the bite of Beijing?

As for the entrenchment of success statement, I do believe 10 years old may be a bit early. But, the sooner the better! Around the age of 10, I began to digest the historical narratives of our town’s library, and it is those early years of my life that my crusade for knowledge was sparked! Success cannot be stagnant, for stagnation is not success. Like a flowing river, we can pound the rocks and stones of misfortune. But, once our drive is lost, we become a pond, though rich with life, stuck in place, and soon to be overgrown by the weeds of opportunity that will, over time, ingest the liquids of our being and leave in our place a marsh that is stuck and subject to the will of others. Only when the waters of liberty are free can the river dictate its own course – and that insurance of free will is key!

-Chris

(Please, keep me posted!!!)

Let us be the world’s rising sun once more

sunriseinamerica

A year ago Mitt Romney addressed the cadets in the South Carolina Citadel – during the heat of the primary season, Romney had set out to define his position on America’s place in the world and the future that that world will hold. “The twenty-first century can and must be an American century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity. My hope is that our grandchildren will remember us in the same way that we remember the past generations of Americans who overcame adversity, the generations that fought in world wars, that came through the Great Depression, and that gained victory in the Cold War. Let future generations look back on us and say, they rose to the occasion, they embraced their duty, and they led our nation to safety to greatness.” With those words and that speech, Romney solidified his belief in American exceptionalism and the unique destiny of the United States.

There is an indestructible truth that we, as Americans, must never forget. We are the beacon of hope, we are light of the night, and we are the bastion of freedom that must persevere in the face of all that dares to oppose independence. If not the United States, who will lead the world forward? Many of ill repute in the trenches of radical liberalism, who seek not greatness for the west, but mediocrity for the world, bemoan and damn the actions of the United States and cry foul when we act as the world’s leading power. They take to the streets, they burn our flag, and they piss on the liberty that gives them such a right. They would prefer that we fade away like the paint on an ancient work of art, they would rather our foundation crack and we sink into the abyss of tyranny, they would rather have all of that than say for a second, with one shallow breath that they live in the greatest nation on earth, that they are a part of the greatest people the world has ever seen. They do all of this, without ever once proposing a feasible alternative. They say that we cannot be first; the world must forever be in a tie. Well, to them I say this – if we slow our pace and stand at the finish line, naively believing that our competitors will do the same for those running behind them, we are destined to fail. How are we to insure civility when those who are on heels will SPRINT through the finish line to guarantee that they are the ones holding aloft the prize of world domination?

We must lead to ensure our agenda of consideration is the standing order of the day. We must lead to ensure that we are never in a position where our will must yield to that of another. Barack Obama, the demigod in office, who can do no wrong, does not believe that the United States is the most exceptional, God blessed nation in the world. Instead, like the dream of his father, he believes that the world should be a place of TOTAL equality regardless of the means. He believes that the hands of the United States must be tied and we must be subjugated to the will of the third world and other congregations. Well, that is not the path that best augurs freedom. If we look around to the other countries of the world I dare you to find one that has liberty and justice so deeply rooted in the genetic code of the people.

In the United States, our forefathers fled despotism and lack of opportunity because they had what others do not. While others wallow in their filth and pretend to thrive in patchiness, others do something. Many had the opportunity to come to our country, but they had not the heart. They had not the heart to climb into the bellows of the ships, they had not the heart to chip away at the pressing tide of nature, and they had not the heart to work for their post, instead of accepting their doom. Great men seek great opportunity, and lesser men lament the great. The United States must not pity our post, but we must instead grab the mantel of opportunity and ensure that we preserve it until the end of days. Well, the radicals will say, no great state has ever persevered their greatness forever; no great state has ever maintained its position. What a disgusting projection of pessimism, what a deplorable display of defeatism, and what a shame it is to see the decedents of our once pure and proud people slouch to the global mainstream. Man had never walked on the moon, man had never flown, man never had written word, man never had fire, man never walked upright, man never looked at the stars – but there was a spark that ensured man did those things, and I see no reason to believe that such a spark could once again trample the trends of the past. I see no reason to believe that such a spark could ignite in the hearts of the American people the will to triumph above all else.

In 1894, when the United States confidently stretched from sea to sea for the first time, Sam Walter Foss wrote a line in a poem in which he summarized all that made the lure of talent the means of our evolution. “Bring me men to match my mountains, Bring me men to match my plains, Men with empires in their purpose, And new Eras in their brains.” Where has this anthem gone, where has our sense of duty hidden? We are the chosen people of the earth, we are the ones who have the tools to procure and provide freedom for those under the tyrant’s thumb. In the juggles of Vietnam the Green Berets wore a patch on their shoulder – that patch did not say fight for wealth or kill for joy, it said “DE OPRESSO LIBER,” Liberate the Oppressed. We must once again reinvigorate democracy’s crusade. We must, as JFK sought to do following the fall of Cuba, repel threatening doctrine and publicize a global revolution, one that is not based on the persecution of success, but one that provides man with every tool he needs to obtain his own advancement. In other words, let us not tie our success to an even, parallel rise of others – let us create an atmosphere that enables the spirit of man to thump true to the beat of advance.

We are not a people seeking global domination. We are not a people wishing to do harm to others. Instead, we are a people who recognize that we are best suited for the role of global leadership. We use an international language, we are a nation of immigrants and represent countless cultures, and we are a people of a conservative revolution, we believe that every state is free to choose its own path free from the constraints of a central authority. The New World must provide, with the United States as its leading force, the pure blessings of freedom. Christopher Columbus wrote, “Following the light of the sun, we left the Old World.” Today, we have the opportunity to be the world’s sun once more. We have the chance before us to lead the world towards peace, instead of being dragged through the mud of instability. The United States must have a plan, the United States must acknowledge its duty, and the United States must provide stability and justice not only to its own people, but to the world.

America, let us change the world once more

RyanRomneyWalker

Today, in Wisconsin, Mitt Romney rallied in Janesville with re-elected Governor Scott Walker and Representative Paul Ryan, where he delivered a speech outlining the failures of Obama’s government, economic policies, and evident lack of positive leadership. Romney has taken to the streets of Wisconsin with the hopes of connecting Walker’s positive win a few weeks ago, in the nation’s third executive recall election, with the overall national campaign. Many on the left assumed the union pressure and the media hype would create a democratic landslide for gubernatorial hopeful, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett – who won the Democratic primary on a platform of fierce opposition to Walker’s reforms. But, as the reforms began to take effect, and the state’s budget was not balanced on the backs of the average working family, the people of Wisconsin began, as they had in 2010, to align themselves with the Republican message of balanced budgets and sound, pro-growth economic policies.

With a margin of victory just under seven percent, the recall election showed an improvement on the governor’s original margin of victory. Walker’s victory parallels that of Bob Tuner’s victory in New York City’s Ninth District special election, where Turner defeated Democrat David Weprin with 51.7% of the vote that he has lost a year earlier to Anthony Weiner’s 61%. Both of these elections have been seen as referendums on Barack Obama’s failed governance, and leadership. So, when Romney was introduced by Gov. Walker this morning he was evoking an image of the Republican tidal wave that is due to crash against the levy of Democratic incumbency. President Obama has not stepped foot in Wisconsin since the re-call election – but Romney has begun the charge. “I’ll tell you, I think President Obama had just put this in his column; he just assumed at the very beginning Wisconsin was going to be his… But you know what? We’re going to win Wisconsin! We’re going to get the White House!” And, with that, the factory filled and surrounded with supporters burst into a thunderous hail of applause and cheers. It is hard to believe, with Romney commanding the affection of the state’s electorate, that the state has gone blue in every general election since 1984.

Paul Ryan hit the nail on the head, when he told the people of Wisconsin just how important their role in the November election would be. “We are unique in Wisconsin… We, along with a handful of other states, will determine the trajectory of this country – the future for our children. Will it be great? Will it be better? Will we give our kids a brighter future [and] keep that American legacy, or will we go down this dark path and give them a diminished future – the path we are on today?” That is the message of this campaign. Will our country continue down the path of moderate, complacent recovery, or will we take the steps necessary to create an environment that will propel the American economy to the forefront of global leadership.

The United States has a special role in the world. “For other nations,” Henry Kissinger once said, “utopia is a blessed past never to be recovered; for Americans it is just beyond the horizon.” With Obama at the helm many of our fellow citizens seem to believe that the next generation will not face progression, but instead a lower standard of living. With Barack Obama as our leader, Congress has been deadlocked, void of presidential leadership. In fact, the only time I remember the anointed one attempting to unite the parties, was during the looming governmental shutdown during the 2011 “grand debt bargain” that produced nothing but brutal spending cuts that our government is trying to soften today (the defense cuts we are facing today, that threaten to cripple our nation’s role as the remaining superpower). In short, the president has created a society that does not, as Kissinger professed, believe greatness is right around the corner. Our president has, in just under four years burst the Faberge egg of American Exceptionalism, taking that once dominant ideology out of the popular vernacular, and putting it into the hearts of only the most optimistic characters.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan forever insured his place in history when he asked, during the final presidential debate, if the people of the United States were better off then they were four years ago. Well, today the question is being asked once again. Are you, as a citizen of the United States, better off now, than you were four years ago? Yes, our nation may have been in its darkest hour, but have you been lead to the light, or have you been taken further into the mist of the un-forsaken cave of radical ideology? Mitt Romney is offering something the president is not: Mitt Romney is proposing to re-inflate the balloon of our destiny. The torch held aloft by the Greatest Generation, he said, is beginning to falter. And, it is time for our generation to take task in making sure it never again bends to the will of outer-American forces. Ronald Reagan said in 1964, that “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

Our current president is doing a horrible job defending our freedom. If we study the root of every major societal change, it has come on the heels of economic ruin. From the Chinese Revolution of 1912 to the Russian revolution of 1917, or from Tunisia to Cairo, social strife and revolution may have many different factors, but they also have one common theme – a depressed economic forecast, where man knows, regardless of his effort, he would be found the next year, not in a state of progression but in a dejected resurrection of past failures. And, what is our president doing to repel our state’s complacent approach to economic re-invigoration? He wants, time and time again, to spend more of our tax payer money, not for long term investment, but for a continual flushing away of our nation’s resources for the preservation of the greatest evil – the welfare, entitlement state. How now must our nation be re-invigorated? Mitt Romney and the right propose a totally different approach – free man from the burden of government, and allow government to serve man. It is not the duty of man to yield to the state if the state does not take action to preserve the basic societal needs of the populace. And, the basic need of our people is our preservation of liberties outlined in the Constitution – and that is done through the creation of a stable environment that allows the independent sovereign states of our union to compete for the domestic needs of the individual.

After his successes in the Middle East, Lawrence of Arabia wrote, “All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was a vanity: But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams out with open eyes, to make it possible.” America, let us not drift away into the surly sleep of grandiose promises, let us not close our eyes and retreat into the nirvana of inner hope. Let us reject completely the notion of a subtle defeat and thrive with great strides to live life with open eyes – let us dream not with our minds, but with our actions. Upon leaving office, Ronald Reagan addressed the nation for the final time as president. He said, “We set out to change a nation, and wound up changing the world.” America, let us live, let us thrive, let us change the world once more.

INTO THE LOIN’S DEN: The Question Heard Around the World

After a tough day of campaigning in Ohio, Mitt Romney has moved off to New Hampshire to campaign with Governor Tim Pawlenty and President Obama has returned to Washington to push forward his plan for amnesty. The executive branch has inflated its own power and ego today when the president announced the suspension of the deportation of illegal immigrants. Yesterday, in a long winded speech in Cleveland (the liberal stronghold of the state), the president called on Mitt Romney and the nation to concentrate on the central ideology of the campaign – the root of this presidential election. And, that core debate is one of the nation’s economy. The president, the very next day, talks the talk, but fails to walk the walk – the president has changed from the topic of economics, to another social issue.

The president is rapidly losing support amongst the youth and Hispanic voters. The president still has a healthy lead in both categories, but he is clearly on the decline as voter registration for the youth have fallen from 73% in 2008 to only 64% this year. Furthermore, of that 64%, only 43% think the president will win re-election (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/06/young-voters-are-abandoning-obama-but-not-running-to-romney.html). In other words, the president has lost the excitement and momentum that propelled him to a 192 point lead over John McCain, a man who failed to garnish the youth’s support. With all of that said, it is clear that the president is now trying the court the radical left to fill the growing void un his support base.

Report after report have come out showing the president’s loss amongst Jews, blacks, the youth, and migrants – his back is to the ropes, and all he has left is the radical left, and courting them with political stunts. He has put before the American people, not for approval, but for acceptance, the amnesty of illegals. How, Mr. President is the amnesty of illegals a plan to fix our nation’s trickling economy? On the eve of yet another European bailout, the President has abandoned the economy a day after he had called for an economic debate – and, when the right tries to rebut this plan with logic and fair debate, the left will moan and bemoan the right for abandoning the debate on the economy. What is the right to do? What are the Republicans to do? What is the nation to do? How can we, as a people, concentrate on our state’s economic ailments when the leader of the Free World continues to change the topic, and when one tries to address this shift, we are pushed aside for yielding from the core issues of the day.

Today, we do not have political leadership in the White House; we have political schizophrenia and disruption. Today, the President ended the deportation of “young” illegal immigrants, all 800,000 of them. The White House seems to believe that, just because a person is brought to our country at a young age, by parents who have violated the rule of American law. The president wants to allow the illegal youth to be given work programs (people up to 30 years old, mind you) – people who were illegally educated in our country, and people who are not legally allowed in our country. These people are not people picking fruits, these are people who will be taking the jobs of the Presidents prime demographic – American youth.

The Dream Act, which proposes the same treatment of illegal youth, was rejected by the Democratically controlled Senate with a vote of 56-43. The president, seeing that the people of the United States are just too primitive and conservative to allow illegal amnesty, has taken it upon himself (as he has, time and time again), to circumvent the authority of Congress, and use executive authority to impose this ruling upon the nation. Already there has been backlash in the border states, as Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, has said he will continue to arrest illegal immigrants – he will continue, he said, to enforce state laws, and will continue to do so until Congress, the creator of actual law, passes a bill requiring him to do something different (http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/video-sheriff-arpaio-reacts-to-illegal-immigration-change). It must be clear to the people that executive orders are merely paper loins, as the President is the enforcer of law, not the creator nor the amender.

In the Rose Garden this evening, the president was releasing a statement on the issue, when a member of the White House press corps, Neil Munro, asked the President to clarify his position on the economic ramifications of having a liberal migratory policy during weaning economic times. Mitt Romney has, during the past months of campaigning, has begun to confront the President on his continued desire to follow the European model – and, on word of today’s announcement, one cannot help but see the comparison. Today, Europe has an ever growing unemployment rate, with Spain near 25% and Ireland near 15%, yet, there are factions within those states who call for more immigration. Ireland’s Celtic Tiger has been wounded, and at a time when the state should be taking steps to ensure her best and brightest minds remain in country, she is forcing them to look for work elsewhere by allowing outsiders into the state to take the jobs that an Irishman could have taken.

While on an expedition to Montréal this past week, I ate lunch in an Italian restaurant. My waiter approached the table and gave me the customary “Bonjour.” With that prompt, I returned a “Hello,” and the man instantly started talking to me in flawless English. But, this man was not a Quebecer; he was a Frenchman, a man who came to the New World to find work. Why, why would a Frenchman travel across the world to take a menial job? I, personally, like to think that this man actually came here to flee the socialists – but the fact of the matter is, he came for work. The menial jobs that were once profitable and obtainable in Europe have become an impracticality prompted by easy immigration’s nasty nectar. You see, why would a manager hire a native, when he can hire an African migrant for half the price? This competition has forced this man overseas, out of his state’s natural element, and into the arms of a society that can give him the pay and environment that the French state is slowly losing.

This is being played out from Belarus to Portugal, from Dublin to Athens. Europe has, like an unknowing host, opened the flood gate of hyper-immigration’s tedious virus. And, all of this is viewed as the global norm because the United States, the conceptual leader of Western ideology, has turned a blind eye towards our own domestic policy. The West will continue to implode and harm her best and brightest minds by allowing vast segments of illegals to settle within the borders and strike at the knees the foundation of economic freedom. Fifty years ago, a man could get an menial job and build a strong, personal economic foundation for his future – when he was down to his last buck, he could get a job out west on a farm, or travel to the south east to pick citrus. There were jobs available to the lowest segments of our native populations – today, that safety net is no more, because the owners and financers are prompted by lazy government to hire illegal immigrants who will do the same work for a fourth of the pay.

Today, the president berated Neil Munro for daring to ask the Imperial President a question on the policy. How, he asked, could the President justify this relaxation of policy while unemployment was still above 8%? The answer was nowhere to be found – instead of answering the citizen; the president lectured him on manners. Thank God, there is no law requiring man to bow before this pontification of raw tyranny – the President is not an immortal deity, hoisted to the highest pedestal by divine intervention. The president could muster no response, and still the question hangs in the air – how, Mr. President, can you ask our people to open our arms when those once welcoming arms are wearied from four years of economic stagnation prompted by your inability as a leader?

These domestic issues, though, as the president commanded in Cleveland yesterday, are not the talking points of the debate – we must stick, though he is not confined by his own prompt, to the economic debate. Let us allow amnesty, let us allow the president to sit idle, let us allow the West to drown in unrestrained liberalism, so long as we confront the president’s demand of the day. Immigration, illegal and untrue, cannot overtake the west. We must stand firm to our core principles of rule by law hinged on the liberties insured by God. We must confront the ailing economy of our state. And, we must ensure the United States remains the greatest ideological power, economic power, and cultural force the world has ever seen. For, if we cannot insure those factors and pure personal freedom, than we are nothing more than the generation that lost it all. If we cannot hold fast, we will be known as the generation that was born into grace, and died in disgrace – that can never be, that should never be, and if we set our mind’s eye on the prize, it will never be.

Clintonites: The Cost of Primary Decisions

Obama and the Clintons

Today, there is a growing rift in the Democratic Party – between the radical elements of the Obama camp and the old guard of the Clinton camp. Many of the old guard Democrats are in open rebellion against the president’s economic plan and, though they are not offering any of their own solutions to the growing economic woes, they are more than willing to bemoan the president’s approach. This movement has been led by a lot of President Clinton’s old team, now dubbed the Clintonites, and it has been gathering a lot of momentum, and there is now open talk of a run by Hillary Clinton against the president during the convention or in 2016.

This open talk of a run by Secretary of State Clinton is absolutely incredible, especially after many in the Democratic Party sat idle during the Democratic primary, one in which the president ran unopposed. It would appear that the lack of primary opposition has not given the Democratic Party the adequate time to vet their candidate – imagine the clamor in the Republican Party if Mitt Romney had not had to go through the primary process, there would be political riots in the streets. Instead, the President has been thrown into the fire without proper preparation, leaving him at odds with his own party. Today, instead of being a prepared candidate, he is struggling to rally his own party at a time when he should be attempting to rally a nation.

Two historical examples come to mind that reflect the growing rift in the Democratic Party – the 1992 and 1964 Republican primaries. In both of these examples, the mainstream party had to confront the ideological “radicals” in their parties. In 1992, George H. W. Bush was hot off the triumph of the Gulf War, was a strong incumbent, and there was no doubt that he was going to be the presidential nominee. Now, the Republican Party could have decided to grant Bush amnesty, and run no major political power against him. Instead, the conservatives put Pat Buchanan, a devoted conservative, into the ring to contend the moderate incumbent, not with the hopes of winning the nomination, but with the practical objective of reeling Bush a little further to the right. During this process, Bush was given the opportunity to hone his political skills and prepare for the general debate against Perot and Clinton. The 1992 primary has been given two very different conflicting legacies – first, it is credited with drawing some of the Republican conservatives into the Bush camp, but at the same time, it is also credited with driving many of the undecided voters out of the Republican camp and into Perot’s camp that stressed the monotony and political frustration of the two party system that was plaguing politics at the time.

In 1964, the Republican Party was without a clear leader when ex-Vice President Richard Nixon elected not to run; inviting the showdown between political ideologies was on. Would the party, led by New York Governor J. D. Rockefeller continue to follow Nixon and George Romney’s cues to adopt a more centrist platform, or would the party, forced by President Johnson’s continual violation of state sovereignty, join the rouge Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona down the path of new conservatism? This primary was one where both candidates were given a proper vetting, and the party was able to develop a stance. Goldwater would win the nomination after a long fought conservative crusade that alienated a lot of the North Eastern moderates and effectively re-drew the political landscape.

The once reliable “Democratic South” was busted by the conservative Republican movement, creating a political demographic that has survived to date. Goldwater, though an ineffective presidential candidate, was able to start a conservative movement that brought a lot conservative Democrats into the ranks of the party – including an ex-Democrat and Governor of California to be, Ronald Reagan. Had the 1964 primary contest been averted, and Nixon inherited the position or Rockefeller had run unopposed, the conservative movement in the Republican Party would have never been and there would have been no conservative voice in either of the major political parties. If Goldwater had not run, the south would have been without a viable option, and that would have led to the rise of a ferociously radical candidate along the lines of a Gov. George Wallace, thus taking the south out of any serious national political contention (as in 1968 when he ran on an independent ticket, leaving the Democrats and Republicans free to pursue a liberal agenda).

What does all of this mean? Why should two Republican Primaries, where conservatives set their platform before the centrists, mainstream candidate be compared to Barack Obama and the Democrats? The truth of the matter is that Barack Obama is at the head of a left leaning (and “leaning” is a rather restrained and judicious term) political party that has been distancing itself from moderates, leaving the Republican Party free to press its political agenda against a party that is losing popular support, and a Democratic Party that has been purged of moderates – moderates who are being welcomed by the new Republican Party. I believe Barack Obama should have, for the health of his own party and political aspirations faced a serious or popular primary opponent. Instead, while Mitt Romney was gathering momentum and uniting a party, Barack Obama was flat footed, collecting dust and losing momentum. Romney has done an excellent job attracting the moderates, and yielding, as a primary candidate should, to some of the major points of his opponents.

During the Republican Primary, Romney faced two serious threats near the tail-end of the race that forced him to redefine his positions and campaign. The first major threat came in December when Newt Gingrich began to thrive after some strong debates, where he took on an aura of the straight talking, problem solving Ross Perot – where solution and anti-Obama contention were key. This caused Romney to step up his talk against Obama. Before that, Romney had tried to sail above the negative campaigning, instead trying to calmly define his positions and stress his conservative credentials (which he had to do during the September rise of Rick Perry). Next came the rise of Rick Santorum. Where Romney stressed his conservative credentials against the weak Perry, he had to pugnaciously defend his conservative platform against the ultraconservative Pennsylvania senator. This evolution of Romney would have been virtually impossible, and today, he would be a weaker candidate with an unexcited base. His evolution made possible the unifying of the current Republican Party possible – had he not defined his conservative credentials, had he not attacked the president’s record, and had he not showed his passion, the electorate would stay home and Romney would be at 20% in the national polls. Instead, he and the president are in a dead heat, and the President’s numbers are slipping with every trickle of bad economic news.

It is with this historical backdrop in which the Democratic Party must bask, and must now sleep in the bed they made. Right now, the Clintonites are eyeing a possible Hillary run in 2016 because they were not given the opportunity to express their positions in a primary battle – they are keeping distance from the president. In my own opinion, I believe had Hillary taken the chance to run against the president, the Democratic Party would have been energized in their effort to either defend the president or advertise his opponent, and the party would be fairing a little better. The primary would have forced Obama to target moderates instead of drooping towards the radical left.

Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential Prospects, Part One

Chris Christie & Mitch Daniels

As Mitt Romney inches closer to the Republican nomination, we, as a party, are going to have to start to seriously ask ourselves who the Vice President should be. This debate, speculation, and hoping has been plaguing the airwaves, the blogosphere, and the coffee shops across the nation. And, it is clear who the preliminary front runners are: Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Nikki Haley, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and several others (literally, I could list them all day). So, let’s go through them all one by one and break down what they would bring to the campaign, and what they might draw away.

Chris Christie came into the national spotlight in 2009 when he defeated Governor Corzine with 48.5% of the vote, to 44.9% of the Democratic ballots. After six years as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Christie had developed a reputation for blunt behavior, and a knack for getting things done. This, of course, created a lot of enemies – being found mostly in the ranks of the state’s corrupt. He led the charge against state corruption, in an essence, sweeping out from underneath the carpet the segments of the public service that had lost sight of their obligations. Fraudsters, the corrupt, and tax evaders all feel into Christie’s crosshairs, and felt the wrath of a population that was slowly growing weary of public waste.

As governor, in the middle of the housing crisis, he took steps to stem the tide by freezing the defunct Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and putting into place the Housing Opportunity Task Force that would be charged with re-evaluating the red tape that had hampered the economic conditions of the New Jersey housing market. In his first year, New Jersey was also heading for a cliff, and the breaks were cut – so, the Governor pulled the emergency break, and ordered a “state of fiscal emergency” in the face of the daunting $2.2 billion budget deficit that came from years of irresponsible Democratic spending and an economic downturn.

To cure the 2010 deficit, Christie cut about $1 billion from the deficit, and called on schools districts to “spend their surpluses in order to allow the state to withhold $400 million in aid.” With these steps, the Governor saved New Jersey from bankruptcy – he had cut negligent spending inherited from Gov. Corzine and had called upon the communities to also take some steps to help the state get out of the red. For, it is not the duty of Trenton to bailout the state; it is the duty of the state to bailout the state. Many today question the move to take surplus money from schools – and, under normal circumstances, I would agree. Why should our schools be targeted and asked to bear the burden of years of reckless Democratic spending? The facts are, if the state were to have gone bankrupt, the schools would have been asked to do a lot more than offer their surplus, there would have been cuts – and Catch-22 cuts are not the solution to any set of problems. The use of surplus as a barrier island in the face of a debt tsunami is a responsible move, and it is an example of a governor who saw the peril, and used the responsible, available tools to quell the threat.

In 2011, Christie vetoed 14 spending bills, passed by the State Assembly, with the intention of creating jobs. On the surface, the move appears to be a cruel smack in the face to the people of New Jersey – but alas, that is not the case. The Democratically controlled legislature passed these bills without proper financing. Just a year after averting catastrophe who could honestly expect a governor, who was forced to take surplus money from schools, to pass 14 unfunded bills? The veto power kept the legislature in check, and helped control the spending that had gotten the state in its original trouble.

Many view Governor Christie as a fat, brash, curt, bastard who is better at offending than reasoning. And to that I say, is that a bad thing. Yes, the governor is large – but when did the appearance of the person dictate the will of the heart and the clairvoyance of the mind? Yes, he is brash and curt – but who would be calm when dealing with an imbedded Democratic majority who, time and time again, insists on reckless spending, spending the state cannot afford. Christie has a record of reform and cleaning house. He invokes in my mind an image of a T. Roosevelt Republican, hell bent on reforming the government, and sweeping out from under the rug years of corruption and frivolity. Who better, I ask, to join Mitt in the fight for the White House, as Washington spending rolls about the deck like a loose cannon in a hurricane. Christie is not in the business of making friends; he is in the business of reform and upright representation!

There would be, I admit, a downside to Christie being the Vice President. Many in the Republican Party, the Conservatives of the Heart that I have recently begun writing and talking about, see Mitt Romney as an outsider, he is a big businessman born in Michigan, and based in Massachusetts who has a hard time connecting with the core of the party. And, those people want to look for someone they can connect with. Can the regular man in Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas really connect with Chris Christie? Can they see in him a man who holds their values at heart? I do not know, but I do know the base of our party is treading lightly at the notion of a northern-eastern ticket, packed with Nixonian Republicans.

If Gov. Christie represents this new wave of conservative house cleaners that followed the election of Barack Obama, then Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana represents a different brand of Republican. He represents the new old guard, a generation of politicians who rode to power on the coat tails of George W. Bush. During his 2005 gubernatorial campaign, his slogan, painted on the side of his RV, was “My Man Mitch” – the slogan given to him by President Bush. Bush campaigned with him twice, which, for a gubernatorial election, on an off-election year, is a pretty high number.

Daniels ran on the notion of cutting the state budget and privatizing public agencies – a move that mirrors the Conservative movement in Britain during the 1980s. As soon as he assumed office, Daniels created the Office of Management and Budget with the intention of reviewing state spending and finding areas where cuts could be made. He also rescinded the 1989 executive order that required all state employees to pay union dues – in doing so he also decertified all the government employee unions. On top of government reform, Daniels also took bounding steps to bring investment into Indiana. In his first term, he created the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) with the intent to “act at the speed of business, not the speed of government” to develop new jobs. From 2005 to 2008, Indiana had attracted $12.5 billion and over 60,000 new jobs, including investment from Toyota, Honda, and Cummins (Honda and Toyota were courted during Daniels’ 12-day trade mission in Asia.

In 2008 Daniels reformed Indiana’s property tax laws, cutting the average property tax by more than 30%, and even took steps, along with the help of a Democrat controlled legislature, to amend the tax limits to the state constitution. And, in 2010, the people of Indiana voted to ratify the constitutional changes, thus solidifying the tax record of the Governor. Also, in 2008, the Manhattan Institute gave Daniels the Urban Innovator Award for his dealing with Indiana’s rascal and urban problems. By 2010, riding the wave of anti-Obama and anti-Democrat popular sentiment, the Republicans swept the state legislature and came to power with two super-majorities. So, for the first time in Daniels’ career, the Republican Party had full control of the General Assembly.

It is at this time when the Governor breaks from his traditional, bipartisan aura, and he starts to appease the conservative wing of the party. In 2011, the Republican leadership began to press for a right-to-work law in the state. This would allow workers to be free from union dues and requirements. The theory, of course, is that this will make the state more competitive and profitable for both business and employers. The Democrats left the state, in a walkout inspired by the 2011 Madison Wisconsin walkouts, so the law could not be debated or voted on due to the lack of a quorum. Daniels decided, seeing how this issues was not one of the campaign vows of the new Republican leadership, it should be postponed and debated at a different time, a time when nerves would be relaxed and both parties would have cooler heads.

The governor realized that emotions were too high to pass this measure – it was simply too much too fast, and it would be better for the state to move at a much slower pace. JFK once said that those who ride to power on the pack of a tiger are bound to windup inside. In other words, those who move to fast create an environment of resentment that will only lead to a pendulum of critical reform. And, because of this Indiana is a right-to-work state. Daniels had the Republicans work with pace, in a manner that would allow the Democrats to debate the legislation fairly.

Overall, I believe Daniels is a middle of the road leader, who is almost the opposite of Christie. Whereas Christie is renowned for his in-your-face governance (a lot like an LBJ), Daniels is a compromiser. He knew right-to-work was the right path, but realized that human emotions would not permit the Democrats to debate the bill in the first months after the sweeping election. Also, Daniels has been known to reach across the aisle – something that has vanished from politics after the election of Obama in 2008.

—END OF PART ONE—

Pat Buchanan: Conservatives of the Heart

PatBuchanan1992

In his 1992 Republican Convention speech, Pat Buchanan publicized the Culture War that has been raging in our country since the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. In this speech, Pat says many powerful things, but one of the moments that stuck with me the most is when he said there was a growing rift in the conservative movement, and in the United States. At the top of the conservative counter-revolution there are the learned leadership who can, at times lose sight of the mission. And, that mission is reaching out to those in the heartland – the folks in the trenches, the folks who make our country great. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Buchanan’s speech that really sends the message home:

“My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us. They don’t read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they come from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know they’re hurting. They don’t expect miracles, but they need to know we care.”

This statement struck my core, and reminded me that though the debates may be amongst the intellectuals and professionals, the debates are over great issues that strike and effect every man. Barack Obama came to power on the back of broad popular support – the common man knew not the answer to our nation’s problems and Obama won them over with great promises and grandiose ideas that have no root in reality. Barack Obama spoke to the common man and convinced them he felt their pain, and understood their fear and anguish.

Today, the battle for the average man rages on. Mitt Romney has gained the support of the intellectual leadership of the Republican Party, but the average man, as I discuss the issues with classmates and friends, is having a hard time connecting with the candidate. This mistrust has come about because our party has not held true the lesion given by Buchanan – we are drifting away from our conservative roots, we are drifting away from the central population that makes up the base of our party.

The Republican Party does not have the luxury of a dependent urban population or union memberships to keep the party afloat like that of the Democrats; the Republican Party instead has to reach out to the heartland, the country side, and the rural community to garnish support. And, admittedly, this task is daunting and many will say that the country side will remain forever conservative and Republican. But, with a weary fear, I say that is not the case.

During spring break I did not traverse to Florida or the beach, no. I ventured to the US-Canadian borderlands in upstate New York. Now, for those of you who have never been to the region, upstate New York is a rural, mountainous region, and as you approach the border the land become flat and more agrarian as the Adirondacks fade into the rearview mirror. While there, I spent time talking to some of the people from my generation about some of the larger issues at hand, and found myself a little worried. These folks, who I thought would be thumping their chests with conservative pride, were actually drifting down the enabling position of moderation. And, from that moderate position, I fear many of them will soon become ripe for the liberal picking. The truth of the matter is, these people have been abandoned by the mainstream of the party, and they are now reaching out to any one system that will yield the biggest reward for the least amount of risk and work.

How can we remedy this daunting issue? How can we reach out to the conservatives of the heart? We need to, instead of slouching towards the mainstream of the urban, liberal utopia, be marching proudly towards the conservative homeland – a place where man is not a ward of the state, but is instead as the fresh air of the rural society. During my trip, I found myself along the banks Raquette River (the fifth longest river in the state), that runs into the St. Laurence. While I stood there, striking a Theodore Rooseveltian pose, I was overwhelmed by the liberating aura of the cold, crisp air, cooled even more by the thundering water that smashed against the ancient rocks along the rapids. I was, at that moment, unknowingly aware, of the conservative heartland. We are not, as the media, social networks, and revisionist ideology would like you to believe, a urban people. We are a people of the land; we are a people of wilderness’s possibility.

No man’s grandfather migrated to our country to wander the unforgiving streets of our great cities – they came to our country to obtain a peace of our nation’s wilderness and form, out of the untamed potential, a place that was theirs. We are a people who are genetically programmed, through the choice and voluntary nature of immigration, to seek independence. We would all, if given the option of hyper-individuality or dictated conformation, select the option that gives us total liberty. And, we must defend that notion. We must not retreat from our historical roots, we must not retreat from our genetics, and we must not turn a blind eye to the people with whom we share our parallel ambitions with.

I understand that only 16% of the country’s population is rural, and that is could be rather tempting for a political party to abandon this minority in pursuing other, more profitable demographics for political gains – but, in ostracizing the countryside, we run the risk of losing our conservative base forever. Furthermore, the loss of the rural vote would be the loss of the party’s conservative anchor.

Pat Buchanan failed to win the 1992 nomination; instead he yielded to George H. W. Bush. During the campaign it was Buchanan’s only objective (though every candidate says they are in it to win it, that is not always the reality) was to pull Bush away from the center, with the hopes of making the presumptive nominee address some of the pressing conservative issues of the day, including the attack on private education, the growing opposition to gay marriage, abortion„ immigration issues, and the ongoing “culture war” against traditional American ideas. Pat said it best when he said, “If the country wants to go in a liberal direction, if the country wants to go in the direction of [Democrats]…, it doesn’t bother me as long as I’ve made the best case I can.”

And, Buchanan did a fine job publicizing the issues, successfully drawing Bush to the right on abortion and gay marriage, and also obtaining a silent agreement on the immigration issues – though Bush Sr. did not speak quite as furiously. The modern example of this role could be owed to Rick Santorum’s run against Mitt Romney is the most recent Republican cycle. Rick drew Mitt further to the right. Now, many in the center may view this as damming, preferring to keep social issues and more sensitive topics in the political closet – but, as a conservative Romney supporter, I found Santorum’s show of conservative force to be a healthy stage in the evolution of the Romney campaign.

Rick Santorum always spoke of the “need to draw clear distinctions” between the Republican candidate and Barack Obama. And, if Romney was not challenged by Santorum, it is quite possible that the electorate would not have been exposed to many of Romney’s stances. This primary cycle has been a healthy one, but still the fear that the party might be turning a blind eye to the rural electorate in favor of a more suburban and centrist demographic – and, such a change would be an abandonment of the conservative of the heart.

(Here’s a link to Pat’s speech - it’s very powerful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9gSWZxtN1g)

11th Commandment - Bemoaning the Free Market

At the heart of the Mitt Romney campaign is the idea that Romney is a man of business and creating jobs. After sweeping Iowa and New Hampshire, the walls are closing in on the January 21^st South Carolina primary and the candidates who are going to try to oppose the current front runner in the rest of this Republican presidential battle.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are two prime examples of men who need to stake their claim in the Palmetto State if they expect to trudge along. If you look at Mitt’s funding numbers after Iowa and New Hampshire, you’ll see that the cash is rolling in – and that is expected. The better a candidate does, expectedly, the more momentum he acquires. And, if Perry and Gingrich hope to catch any momentum (keep your eyes on Newt, he appears to be gaining a little bit of headway in the national polls) they will have to battle on.

And, this need to win South Carolina explains the recent attacks on Romney’s time in Bain Capital – a private firm that specializes in venture capital. Venture capital, in short, is a high risk system that gathers capital for investing in startup companies. In other words, Mitt and his partners invested in infant companies – they were on the front lines of capitalism, finding great ideas, and trying to get them off the ground.

Trying is the operative word. The glorious fact of our economic system is that man has the ability to breach the barrier of idea, and create an empire of success at their own will. With that said, man is not destined to continuously march upward – to believe so would be to believe that the world was destined to be eternally flat, and so on. Just as we have the ability to succeed, we must also remember that our success could equally turn to failure. We must never forget that man is free to triumph and free to flounder.

Mitt Romney and Bain Capital were aware of both ends of the capitalistic fulcrum. To one side of the pivot there resides success, and to the other lies, ever waiting, failure. In this past week, Perry and Gingrich have sharpened their claws with the intention of skewing and tearing at the heart of the Romney campaign. These gentlemen have set out to paint a nasty picture of Romney, one covered with the clashing paint of planned failure.

Romney has been described as a “voucher capitalist.” That is, he is a man who destroyed jobs, a man who cast out to reap the reward of liquidation. Newt and Rick have disregarded the free market tradition of the Republican Party and have locked arms with liberal extremists – that is, they seem to believe that a free marketer must be a man who only desires success and must be one who cannot possibly be a man of failure.

The truth of the matter is Mitt Romney and Bain Capital have failed; they have had to pull out of projects that were destined to fall short. But, we cannot forget that it is the job of every capitalist to seek profit because to do otherwise, to let the heart dictate the pocketbook, would be to risk any possibility of further growth.

But, we cannot forget their success. Have you heard of Staples, Domino’s, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, or Toys “R” Us? That is just the tip of the ice berg! Bain Capital has invested in these companies, sometimes starting them off, sometimes rescuing them.

But, I digress.

What have these attacks on Romney’s capitalist history done for the possible contenders? It has alienated them from the Republican Party’s core, free market spine. Two BIG names in the Republican Party have come to Romney’s defense – Rudy Giuliani and Rush Limbaugh have both exposed the faults and dangers in these attacks.

The party’s leading factions seem to be rallying behind Romney as they defend the free market. And, I believe this rally will lead more people into the Romney camp. These Party big wigs realize that a shattered Republican Party is exactly what the Democrats need to undermine the Obama opponent in the general election.

At the end of the day, South Carolina will remain a bitter battle ground which has traditionally led to the exposition of filthy attacks by official organizations and by PACs. This is nothing more than a political tradition – candidates take off the gloves in S.C. because this is usually the moment that makes or breaks a Republican candidate, especially when their backs are against the wall.

In conclusion – the Romney campaign is gaining a lot of support as his opponents attempt to garnish support from extremist factions. Also, the Left is licking their lips as they keep an eye on the air waves for that 10 second sound bit that will make a perfect attack ad, for the general election.

How soon we Republicans have forgotten Ronald Reagan’s popularized 11^th Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republicans.”

Page 1 of 3

← Newer • Older →