There are few things that create tension among mixed company like politics and religion. Both are deeply personal and are shaped over years of experience and observation. Every individual will at some point in their life make judgements regarding what is true and correct. While there are specific tenets in faith and politics that create divisions by faction or creed, there are intersections of laws both made by man and that of the eternities that will by necessity require the formation of relationships based on trust and ecumenical loyalties.

The stage for Economy is when two or more people are gathered to exchange values.
The stage for Politics is when two or more people are gathered to work out their differences by policy.
The stage for Security is when two or more opposing forces cannot work things out by politics.
The stage for Religion is when two or more are gathered to worship.

If any of these things were purely of an individual matter, we would not need discuss them, let alone spend an undue amount of time trying to prove the errors of ignorance, arrogance, envy, enmity, and all other antithetical behaviors to the supposed “virtuous path”. Our intuitive desire for higher understanding, the very desire that espouses the virtues of knowledge, humility, empathy, brotherly kindness, and love, is synthesized in social interaction. Without this desire, without curiosity, the world would we be an awful boring space for matter to occupy.

Exemplars, Heroes, Mentors, are sought after because it’s easier to subscribe to a set of principles and values than it is to come up with, and etch them on your own set of tablets. Subscribing does not require the follower to sacrifice as much in reputation and capital, until they become an active participant to the effect of leading in their own spheres of influence. The stakes for integrity, pure intent, and follow through are not nearly as demanding on the follower as they are for the leader. I suspect that each of us at some point in our lives will be challenged to take up our cause and become the leader where we stand at that time. Each of us will weigh the balance of what “is” and what “ought”, and what we can effect to “become”. Much of those experiences repeating in different circumstances will make up not just what we believe, but who we become. And thus we develop Character.

Those of us that know and understand the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, have a testimony that not only has a perfect exemplar lived and died, but that he lived again. That one life in presumably billions was able to rise above all things, and descend below all things, and then rise again, that He might judge with perfect judgement given to him by his Father.

Testimony is a thing that is difficult to debate with those that do not have that testimony. Again it is something that is acquired through desire, faith, action, and experience. Doctrinal differences aside, all arguments for and against must be weighed by the experience of synthesizing what has been written and analyzed. This is where faith begins, it begins when a truth exists with or without a hypothesis. By curiosity, by desire, or faith, without any evidence that our action will be rewarded with a better understanding, we move forward with what we do know finding the path ahead lighted just enough for us to know we should continue forward. Now when this is so done, and the truth is uncovered, that which was learned has now become experience, and truth becomes not just faith, but knowledge by faith. Without faith, there could be nothing known, for without having knowledge of truth by our own experience, we are just borrowing information from others. Such an existence would be wholly dependent, and yet be isolated in ignorance. Which is why most of us take the truth to be hard when we’re unwilling to interact with others.

There are folks out there that may have good intent, but they’re just wrongheaded. Sometimes they draw their experience from foreign sources to illustrate the correctness of their anecdotal assumptions. These are not enemies to that which is true, but their ignorance is indeed the enmity between truth and the path to hell paved with good intentions. When Reagan quipped about the “trouble with our liberal friends” it was tongue in cheek, but the observation holds true to those that become frustrated when attempting to articulate the hypothesis, analysis, and the synthesis of the “trouble” that we share concomitantly, along with the proposed solution, to another that simply ‘doesn’t get it’.

Humility provides us the opportunity to re-evaluate what we know, and what we do with that knowledge. So much of what Conservatism is, as an ideology, requires personal study, personal experience, and personal sacrifice to stand up to populist movements that are driven by group-think. One mustn’t assume that Conservatism is wholly on the side of tradition when pitted against progress. Conservatism is more about starting with personal effectiveness.

Rather than dealing with outliers by moving the goal posts and skewing production in the name of equality and fairness. The more limited the government is in manipulating the outcome, or redistributing the harvest of producers, the more individuals are required to prosper on their own merits, or depend on the charity of others for their substance. When government provides a safety net for that gap, they promote dependency rather than self-sufficiency, and government grows. When government provides a safety net for that gap, they deprive the opportunity for producers to work by charity, and then government grows.

Not all will value all in parity. So how is it that we can claim that equality is promoted by redistributing the fruits of productivity? All men are created equal, but going forward it is their life and their liberty that allows them to determine their own path in the pursuit of happiness. Liberty without independence is dead being alone. The less dependent we are on others (including Government), the more we can create, innovate, illustrate, and educate. (i.e. contribute/produce). Contribution is always more effective in production than Confiscation and Re-Distribution of talents, and when we are speaking about the conditions of mankind at the individual level, progress will be found in personal effectiveness, not dependence on others for substance.

There is indeed a tension between our head and heart. But when peaceful emotions seem to harmonize both, we are given the rare gift of clarity in that very moment. It is when we have these moments that we can be confident in the desire, the action, the faith, and the knowledge obtained. I have a suspicion that the absence of this clarity isn’t a judgement upon our ability to reconcile the tension between head and heart, but rather a clue that quite possibly we’re being distracted from that which is most important and urgent in the pursuit of happiness from the eternal perspective.

Each of us “ought” to evaluate where we stand. We “ought” to lift and contribute in that place to the greatest execution of our capacity. However liberty dictates that we are free to choose our own personal effectiveness to our own purposes. And herein lies the confidence that can not be stripped by detractors, defamers, and distractions. When we do what is right, we remain free. Neither can we do wrong, and feel good about it. As long as we all remain free to choose for ourselves what we produce, and what we contribute, the more there will be of necessity, ideologies that compete. Therefore we must recognize that the expansion and contraction of these tensions during the expected lifetime of an individual are conditions of the perpetuity of social interaction. Some conditions may require compromise, some conditions may require absolutes. Thus the need to set goals with the direction and purpose in mind, as much as the consideration of the destination and achievement. I suppose that on the ladder of knowledge and experience that there is not any one of us that can jump too many rungs at a time, and hope to understand something where we have not tread foot.

Therefore I find myself in agreement with the principle author of the Constitution when he said: “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. -James Madison“

Let’s face it, the new-found love for Gingrich is the pepper in the eye of the establishment side of the G.O.P. Tent. And that endears Newt to me just a little, but that’s not enough to win me over.

My analysis of why Newt won South Carolina is two-fold. (H.T. CNN Exit Poll data)

1. Most (88%) of the Republican Primary electorate in South Carolina may be persuaded by debate performance, which clearly favored Newt.



2. Newt’s demagoguery skills are enough to overcome his past; politically, professionally, and personally, at least in South Carolina.

If we really get into the cross-tabs, you may even see a correlation that evangelicals make up the majority of the T.E.A. Party faction of the Republican tent in S.C. It is possible these folks may have taken Sarah Palin’s advice quite literally.

In addition to Sarah’s admonition, it would appear that Romney fails to attract evangelicals (not due to his Mormonism, but due to his moderate/liberal attraction). I think its possible that there was a general coalescing of T.E.A. party/Evangelicals that determined by debate performance, that Newt is the only viable anti-Romney (conservative). This does not bode well for Santorum, in effect it makes this a two-tiered, two-man race.

At the top tier conservative ideology well spoken vs. non-offending culling of the moderates while taming hyperbole and demagoguery.

At the lower tier of sane social conservatism vs. insane/youthful libertarian bends. (both of these individuals and their supporters will eventually have to choose one or the other of the top tier, secretly they both hope this goes to convention, but we all know money runs out the longer this thing goes).

I believe that Newt’s found the chink in the armor of our “Inevitable” nominee. Which is put simply… Demagogue to victory, and hope the past doesn’t catch up with him. Mitt simply won’t demagogue, at least not on conservative ideas, he’s plum happy going after Newt on “influence peddling”. His plan all along is to win the moderates, and he and his handlers must be in agreement, don’t offend the moderates/independents.

The odd thing is, I’m not convinced that Newt’s entirely over his past… and I’m not talking about his personal life. He seems to see nothing wrong with demagoguing Mitt’s private sector success, while trying to muddy the waters on the definition of lobbyist.

Clearly South Carolina voters believe that Newt is electable. They believe he can beat Obama… by debate.

I’m not so convinced that Obama will “lose” any debate… he’s got a media that will throw him softball questions, and moderators from the media, that will gladly re-direct the conversation if its not going well for Dear Leader.

At the same time, I don’t think Romney’s ‘don’t offend the moderates’ strategy is much better, because the path to victory of necessity requires a strong base of G.O.P. drum beating, while convincing the moderates and libertarians, that 4 more years of Obama will be the end of America: land of the Free. Yes 4 more years of Obama is the beginning of America: land of the Total Egalitarian State of Fairness, Equality, and Social Reform as the State sees fit to impose upon its citizens.

As long as Newt is pushing the conversation to the right… I’ll forgive his past too. I’m completely undecided at this point, and believe I may end up voting a conscience vote in the primary. My loyalties are mine to give, don’t bother trying to tell me it’s my fault if Romney wins the nomination, I’m not convinced yet that, that scenario is so bad either.

All that being said. The moniker “Food Stamp President” is brilliant. I think it’s amazing how Newt can turn a liberal argument on its ear. I think this is a trait that will be needed to beat Obama and the MSM. However, nothing will be won in the general if people are not awakened to the awful state of the union. If the moderates are culled into security and safety arguments regarding the economy, and if the G.O.P. candidate is demonized to the convincing of moderates that the G.O.P. isn’t serious about fixing things (i.e. spending, then taxing to make up for excessive spending) then all is lost.

The arguments must be made for Cut, Cap, Balance. The argument must be made for Entitlement reform. The argument must be made for Tax reform. The argument must be made for reducing, and making more efficient Federal regulation. The argument must be made for Energy independence plan. The argument must be made that these actions will result in more economic activity, and get the capital back in the markets and taking risk again.

One way or another, any of the remaining candidates… should they win the nomination, will get my undivided loyalty.

First, Allow me to publicly thank Governor Perry, his wife, Anita, their family, and their staff for all their hard work. Much may be said concerning missteps, mistakes, blunders, and the shoulda, woulda, couldas. I for one am grateful for the grace it takes any candidate and their team to put themselves out there and take the heat while furthering the causes of conservatism. For that we owe a great debt of gratitude to Governor Perry and his team.

Much will be said today, and in the coming days that we who supported Perry, “ought” to get behind either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum to oppose a Romney Nomination at all costs.

I for one am going to pray. I’m going to pray that each of the candidates will gain the vision of conservatives. That they will seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That they will espouse founding principles and they will become uncompromising in that vision.

We need to protect life, in all of its forms.
We need to protect liberty for all citizens by shrinking the size of government bureaucracy, while bolstering our ability to protect our lands, and to live in our freedoms.
We need to protect the pursuit of happiness in the Economy.

We need to end the over-regulation, and we need to turn the devils out of that Hell we know as Washington D.C. where the wicked manipulate the laws of this land to reign with corruption, utilizing all manner of sophistry to usurp life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to re-distributive ends for their own personal gains.

I hardly believe that what remains in the field of G.O.P. candidates that any one of them truly have the vision and wherewithal to withstand the fiery darts of the left, the media, and the onslaught of calumny and defamation.

Electability has always been in We the People. Not the narrative. We must be ever vigilant, and diligent in keeping our Republic.

Going forward, the candidate that gets my support will be the candidate that shows me that they respect the Values of Duty and Responsibility to God, Family, and Nation, in that order, and can do so without hypocrisy or guile more than any other candidate.

Candi-bots have a “primary” function (pun inteded ).  They are programmed to promote their candidate.  They will take all action necessary to spam, spread the news, post information, and attempt to persuade others that their candidate is superior, while all other candidates are inferior.

Candi-bots serve a purpose in society, they tend to cause the rest of us to pause, and think about the generalizations, the assumptions, and even force us to take into consideration refuted claims that others have made on their candidate.

Candi-bots generally re-act to news and information with rapid responses (sometimes not well thought out) but a good candi-bot knows they have to get ahead of a narrative to corral emotions for peak conversion.

Candi-bots rarely have feelings, unless you’re bagging on their candidate, then they may re-act in several variations of bad behaviors. Often times certain words or phrases, that have proven to be effective negative monikers, trigger a programmed response, and herein lies the glitch.

Candi-bots tend to be passionate about only one thing, and that’s winning souls to their candidate.

Now some may suggest, this isn’t a design flaw, but a feature.  No, it’s a flaw… the reason it’s a flaw is because no candidate can overcome the first impression of an idiot that swears fealty, devotion, and love for another human being, without acknowledging their faults.  If it were only 1 first impression, it’s possible it could be overcome by having another pitch be made by an intelligent, reasonable, and even principled individual, that offers devotion not due to some illogical political-crush, but because they can point to the candidate, and say THAT person best represents me.

So why am I bringing this up now?  Well let’s put it this way… Ron Paul* is not Jesus (not that that matters to non-christian libertarians, but you know what I mean, there is no political salvation in Ron Paul’s presidency**, so just stop with the ceremonious praise of a man, he’s not a god).

So is anyone working on a firmware update for the general election regardless of whom the nominee might be?

*If you feel the beginning of this diary might have been directed at you even though you’re not a Ronulon, you should know that technically you could put any candidate’s name here.  So just stop being a bot.

**There.  Now nobody can accuse me of not giving Ron Paul fair consideration.

Perspective and Principle

*The perspective of an individual is more often shaped by their skewed perceptions, not their objective observation.
*A principle is something that was, is, and always will be true.

Conservatives shouldn’t be giving in to Romney just yet

Given the state of the primary so far… I’m not so convinced that Mitt Romney is the worst of the pack by ideology, rhetoric, or record.

However, based on Principle, I’m supporting Rick Perry, because I trust him to boldly govern by conservative principles. Out of all of the candidates, his record and rhetoric squares the circle better than any other candidate in the field. I still believe this is true, even with his most recent egregious strategy to go after Romney with a populist’s class warfare argument.  Elections are elections. I disagree with the strategy, but I still believe Rick Perry is the best conservative in the pack.The media have done their part to dismiss him in the eyes of voters. The campaign handlers have done their part to fail in their messaging. The candidate has done his part to make mistakes along the way.

I am part of the “Anti-Romney” crowd by default, because I am Pro-Perry.  As such I have to recognize that time is short, and Romney has momentum that can’t be ignored. If I were a weak-minded fearful cuss, I’d likely accept the narrative of Mitt Romney’s inevitability. But I won’t. However, any other conservative out there should be aware, that if consolidation doesn’t happen sooner rather than later, Romney wins. It’s that simple.

The fact is this primary season is different, and nobody has been looking at the process. Primarily because we’re all caught up in the very dangerous game of attempting to bend reality to the narrative. This primary season has gone from weak arguments of electability to even weaker arguments of inevitability. With the first 4 major primaries completed by January 31st 8PM EST, we’re left with the presumed ‘inevitable’ nominee. THIS IS NONSENSE.

• 1,142 Delegates is what is needed to win the G.O.P. nomination before convention.

• The first 4 events leads to a total of 115 delegates (that’s with the penalties of moving primaries up)

• Super Tuesday isn’t so super this year.

• Total delegates available at the end of “Super Tuesday” is 874… Romney will not be getting 100% of all delgates up to this date.
• Super Tuesday also includes states that are less likely to pull a New Hampshire, and back a squish based on “electability” arguments.
• There are some caucus events between Florida and Super Tuesday that will likely not get a lot of media attention regardless of the results, rather I’m predicting that televised debates, and narrative will be the biggest factor in this period.

• There’s only 1 thing that causes a conservative candidate to drop out. Lack of Money.

• Consolidation will happen, because eventually someone is going to foolishly lose their mind and then become untenable to the conservative electorate.
• I’m going to go ahead and predict that South Carolina will not be the hill to die on for Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum, or even Jon Hunstman Jr. They’ll each have enough in the war chest to go on to Florida, and likely ride things out to Super Tuesday at least before they are winnowed down to 1-2 conservative alternatives.

A word concerning the Weeping, Wailing, and Gnashing of Teeth

Some conservatives are giving up. Some out of desperation are flailing about with all the negative they can, hoping that Romney will be hurt by populism, or hoping that the other “conservative alternatives” will drop out making this a 2-man and a Loon race. Look folks… consolidation will happen… the question is, when it does… will it have been too late?

I have had enough of the ridiculous bemoaning that has been going on lately. We can NOT allow the media to shape the narrative. Are you so FEARFUL that you’re willing to give in? They want to use YOUR fear, YOUR doubts, YOUR ignorance to drive you to do silly things, such as MAKE LEFTIST ARGUMENTS AGAINST CAPITALISM… Are we that desperate? I think not!

Let’s attempt to view things objectively for a moment.

Should Mitt Romney become the G.O.P. nominee, it will be the DUTY of EVERY FREEDOM LOVING, LIBERTY EMBRACING, CONSERVATIVE OF ANY STRIPE, to not only vote for Mitt Romney, but to DONATE, AND WORK WITH THE FURY OF FIRE FROM THE SKY to get him elected. Why? Because the alternative choice is President Obama for 4 more years.

This country has LOST THE SENSES IT WAS BORN WITH! All it took was 3 years of a hell bent socialist-reformer™ in the office of President of The United States to change the narrative of political battles of “how do we make the country better” to “how do we keep from driving off the cliff”. The arguments went from “socialism vs. capitalism” to “fairness vs. wealth”. Your everyday American can’t make the distinction, because your everyday American most likely isn’t wealthy… so naturally they’re going to assume that they side with “fairness”.

If the choice is between a “vulture capitalist” and a “socialist-reformer™”… I’m gonna take the vulture capitalist and be darn glad I had a choice. I’m not defending Romney or Bain here, I’m defending capitalism. There simply is no excuse for any conservative that tries to make Bain the Bane of Romney’s existence. Romney had a successful career at Bain, he did turnarounds, and slash and burns… but as an unapologetic believer in freedom and liberty… let me say this…

There is a whole lot of piss poor analysis going on. Some of it may even be dishonest attacks by ignorance or arrogance. When Romney spent his private sector career building wealth with his ability to make an enterprise prosperous or break it down and sell it off for profit… it really has little to do with job creation or destruction.

Economics is what drives job creation and job destruction. Government and Private sectors are but vehicles in the process. Capital destruction processes are just as necessary to economic systems as termites in a forest of dead wood.

The TRUTH is going after Romney and Bain is a POPULIST ARGUMENT no matter how you dice it. This is the problem with comparing a private sector record with a governance record. Romney’s comparison of Bain to GM is appropriate… the difference is, had the GM bailout been structured by Bain and not the Government. A capital investment firm would have not negotiated for the Unions, they’d have restructured the company without throwing the shareholders with preferred shares under the bus, they would have been subjected to bankruptcy laws, and all precedents in the exchange. Unlike how Obama made the tax payers the creditors, and handed the company over to the Unions, and knew going into the deal, that they were just kicking the can down the road.

The REAL Alternative

That’s just it… Obama’s plan is ‘kick the can down the road’ on any issue that can’t be fixed without inflicting some real pain on people, his plan is to kick the can down the road, and get Republicans to agree to more spending out of necessity to keep things moving. Look I’m not heartless. I’m not rich. I’m not envious. And I’m certainly not persuaded by arguments of false charity, false hope, and false faith. But I have to say it, LIBERTY CAN’T EXIST WITHOUT OPPOSITION. You CAN’T enjoy the merits of opportunity, without the realities of risk, failure, and pain.

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JOB. So reserve your moral judgements for moral issues. Any Job that exists… exists because someone had the liberty to innovate, create, and pursue their happiness. Government can’t exist without generating revenue from its citizens. I have empathy to those that lose their jobs. However, I don’t blame any capitalist for turning profits in any way they can, while the government does nothing to seriously put a stop to the unethical practices through damn fine policy and legislation. If you want to prevent ALL situations where someone might lose a job… You may as well have joined the socialist team. Giving credence to these narratives of the media is giving credence to their creeds of a socialist nature.

Folks sometimes you have to rely on the fact that the sparrow doesn’t fall without the Father(Matthew 10:29), and when considering the lilies of the field (Luke 12:27) in all their non-spinning and non-toiling, even Solomon was not arrayed like one of these. Populism is not conservatism. Conservatism is based on principles. It’s based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I’m not defending Bain or any other capital firm for practices that may be unethical when you live in a Joe Biden Recession/Depression. I’m am talking about the fact that WE SHOULDN’T be involved in this narrative AT ALL. IN NO WAY is it appropriate. Joining the stream of the narrative, effectively causes us to lose sight of what is important. It causes us to view things from a very skewed perception. The more skewed our perceptions are, the more our ignorance will blind us to what is really important.

Maybe the ignorance of my youthful idealism is blinding me to the fact that we should somehow be supporting populism, anti-capitalist, and class warfare views… This narrative is exactly the medicine the media wants us to take. It deflates the T.E.A. Party, It presents Obama as a caring, nurturing, bleeding heart for the ‘little guy’ that got laid off, and had to either find another job with his current skillset, or re-tool the skillset, and go after a diffferent job. Well LA-DEE-FRICKIN’ DAH… I’m 31 and have already had to face economic realities of job loss, poor employment opportunities, and having to move from state to state, losing the value of my home to a vacuum created by the housing bubble…I don’t blame capitalists… I blame the government regulation and legislation that led to INTERVENTION of the Free Market. Call me quixotic, but I don’t have time to misdirect my energies on “Government Solutions”… I want a President that will make the best decisions from a conservative view, not from a socialist’s view.

This election is about DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM for them… Not us…

*WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT* Conversely THEIR ONLY WINNING STRATEGY… is to cause the base to become discouraged, demoralized, disaffected, and disengaged. If Obama wins re-election, it will be due to failure to turn out the vote… if the enthusiasm to vote against him is removed… then the incumbency wields the victory.

*IF* Mitt Romney is the Nominee… I’m prepared to fight the good fight for his election. What I’m not prepared to do is give up on nominating the most conservative candidate that we can. We do that by convincing every person we know that is age 55 and above that votes Republican to vote conservative, and not for the tall guy with the nice hair.

Consolidation Now!

We have less than a MONTH until the conservative electorate wakes up to see the shadow of the elite Republican establishment, and collectively hands the nomination to a “big government conservative”, or alternatively it ignores the shadow and consolidates behind a true champion of conservative principles. That’s correct, we have 3 primaries (New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida) all before Punxsutawney Phil makes his grand prediction on Groundhog Day. Then what 4 more years of squishy big government winter?

What exactly is a “big government conservative” anyhow? I’m sure it’s as mythical as a jackalope.

I understand that primaries are for knocking off the rough edges, refining the candidates, and making sure that we put our best candidate forward. However, All of our candidates have been programmed by consultants to take a stance based on polling, data, and strategy that may “knock down” their candidate. If the message isn’t tested, analyzed, focus grouped, and deemed approved by a marketing team… then the candidate should avoid the subject at all cost… right?

Iowa did not winnow the field.

It did in fact removed Rep. Michele Bachmann from contention. Without a win in Iowa, Rep. Bachmann wouldn’t have gotten the funding necessary to carry on. She was a great candidate, and hopefully, she’ll continue forward, she’s got a great career ahead of her as a champion of conservatism. However Iowa didn’t winnow her out, the lack of funding did.

From CNN Entrance Polls:

Look at the age groups. Iowa was split by age. If you were 39 and under, likely chances are your ideology got the best of you, and you voted for Ron Paul, or had a little more sense and voted for Santorum over Paul.

If you were 40 and older chances are you bought the “electability” argument from the media, as well as the negative ads on Newt, and you voted for Romney, or… just couldn’t help feeling bad for a guy that visited 99 counties, and established his Pro-Life bonafides and decided to reward him for his effort (a cruel joke to play on such a nice guy, giving false hope like that).

Primaries are better at determining real support. New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida will be the last opportunity to take momentum away from Mitt Romney. Romney will likely take New Hampshire, and downplay a loss in South Carolina, if Romney wins solidly in New Hampshire, takes 3rd in S.C, and wins in Florida, it may end the hopes of any “anti-Romney”.

So why are we looking for someone that is “Not Romney”?

I don’t understand why we’re looking for “not-Romney” when we should just be looking for the most conservative candidate that can win.

The age difference above shows that a small plurality in Iowa agrees with he media establishment, that Romney is the most electable, and therefore he should be the nominee.

Romney has wanted a fractured conservative coalition. Nobody else is likely to leave the race until after S.C. unless they run out of money (I’m predicting that Santorum either drops out after a dismal performance in N.H. or holds on to hope and fails miserably again in S.C.)

The Lesson

The lesson of Iowa is, conservatives should consolidate BEFORE the caucus, otherwise they allow the media to dictate expectations for entire the month of January.

So this is my plea… It’s time to for conservatives to consolidate. We need to air it out, we’re either with Newt, or we’re with Perry. Without consolidation, Romney skates in S.C. by downplaying its significance and focuses on building momentum in FL the same way McCain did it in 2008… and then declares victory going into Super Tuesday.

If consolidation doesn’t happen, Romney becomes the nominee. I can think of worse outcomes — not many, but I can imagine a lot better outcomes to the contrary, and I’d rather think positively.

In 4 days the state of Iowa will hold their caucus events in 1784 precincts in 99 counties, where 1784 precinct delegates will be elected* to represent the precinct at the county convention.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

“In the Republican caucuses, each voter officially casts his or her vote by secret ballot. Voters are presented blank sheets of paper with no candidate names on them.[6] After listening to some campaigning for each candidate by caucus participants, they write their choices down and the Republican Party of Iowa tabulates the results at each precinct and transmits them to the media.” [7]

In 2008, some precincts used a show of hands [8] or preprinted ballots.[9] The non-binding results are tabulated and reported to the state party, which releases the results to the media.

Delegates from the precinct caucuses go on to the county conventions, which choose delegates to the district conventions, which in turn selects delegates to the Iowa State Convention. Thus, it is the Republican Iowa State Convention, not the precinct caucuses, which selects the ultimate delegates from Iowa to the Republican National Convention.

All delegates are officially unbound from the results of the precinct caucus, although media organizations either estimate delegate numbers by estimating county convention results or simply divide them proportionally.”

emphasis mine

Those state delegates will determine who will represent the Iowa Republican party at the Republican National Convention.

So who will be the winner in Iowa?

In a perfect political activist world, it would be the candidate that was employing Coldwarrior to run the ground game for their campaign.

Clearly he would do his very best effort to ensure that of those 1784 precincts the vast majority of them would be loaded with conservative minded activists that show up and carry large influence with their neighbors/associates in their precinct come caucus time. (I do agree with him there was at best a logical weakness in both the Perry and Gingrich campaigns in qualifying for the ballots in VA — but maybe that’s more telling of process change in the way the Republican Primaries are now fought and won, where placing efforts and resources where they provide the most leverage before Super Tuesday is more desirable than allowing a state like VA to go without 15,000 signatures from the party faithful in the right locales.)

Iowa is certainly “different” than most states in how they run their primary process. But one thing remains a constant more than anything else regardless of campaign strategy, resource management, and working the ground game. The more involved you are, the greater influence you can have.

So if conservatives are serious about changing Iowa’s influence, then they should be serious about becoming precinct committee members, and then they should be ready and able to win the favor of their precinct caucus voters… during the caucus event in order to be elected as the delegate of that precinct. SEE: http://iowagop.org/constitution.php

Polling is getting a little ridiculous don’t you think?

At best they media has proven the ineffectiveness of polling to gauge the ground game in Iowa.

The media wants us to believe that the polls reflect the collective will of the people. This is a false representation. The polls often provide sampling that is skewed. The margin of error is often not accurate. The stratification effects of pre-poll samples also skew results. Somehow I have a hard time believing that 318 random likely GOP voters based on voter registration, represents 1784 elected precinct delegates and how they will vote come county convention time. I’m guessing there’s too many standard deviations from the mean adjusted by the standard error to provide an accurate 95% confidence test. But hey… call me cynical.

So what’s the point of paying so much attention to Iowa? So why does the Media emphasize it so much?

Are they attempting to discourage supporters of certain candidates by intimidating them into non-participation in the caucus events of Iowa, or the primaries in other early voting states?

Are they hoping to just stir the pot to see what settles, and what floats?

Are they hoping to provide credence for electability arguments made by pundits and the political class?

Is it they’re just too lazy to report actual news?

Is it an attempt to make campaigns desperate so they’ll leak the opposition research?

I don’t know, neither to I really care.

So what really matters? The conservative mindset of the collective Iowa GOP Caucus voters.

What I *DO* care about is the fact that OUR COUNTRY is indeed on track for “fundamentally transforming” into a nation of statists that no longer search the rule of law to guide the principles, actions, and scope of our government, but rather arguments of fairness, class warfare, and progressive ideologies that weaken every individual’s god-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Need proof? President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address It’s full of rhetorical nuggets that if closely examined by context are arguments to justify Obama’s progressive statism view. Preying on ignorance, progressive agendas wrapped in rhetoric and false logic, which are often sought after by ‘any means necessary’, will indeed cause divisions, contentions, and political and economic disparity leading to unrest, protest, and conflict and everything that is exceptional about America.

So here it is Iowa, prove to me your relevance, by showing the influence of conservatism in the GOP

If you’re a conservative in Iowa, you have a responsibility to lead out on conservative principles when debating for your candidate at your designated precinct caucus meeting space, and in choosing your precinct delegate.

Iowa — It’s up to you to show elitists that pandering no longer works, but that people are looking for protectors of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (“as God intended it”, and “without subsidies”).

Iowa — It’s up to you to show candidates that you’re not persuaded by polls, focus group advertising, or negativity.

Iowa — It’s up to you to prove to the media that you don’t require “electability” arguments from network pundits to establish the electability of a conservative candidate.

Iowa — It is up to you to not waste your influence on candidates that haven’t had executive leadership experience and will fail to appeal to the many in a general election.

Iowa — It’s up to you to not accept rhetoric over records when it comes to conservatism.

Iowa — Do yourself a solid, and vote for Rick Perry the most conservative candidate in this race, that can win. (but hey, that’s just like my opinion)

* Supposing that every precinct is actually organized by the counties.

As one that attempted to persuade you to support the BEST candidate, rather than trash the other candidates, believe me when I tell you that I still don’t think it’s necessary to go on and on about personal issues from the past or present of other candidates whether real or perceived. It simply isn’t necessary to destroy someone’s reputation based on rumors… and until something is confirmed, speculation really has no place in judging our candidates for THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY… which is HOW WILL THIS PERSON MAKE DECISIONS and GOVERN.

When I asked others to tell me where I was wrong in my thinking last go around, the two-three most prevalent themes to emerge concerning why one could not back Rick Perry were as follows:

1. Electability.
2. Can’t sell his message to the Conservative Base.
• 2.a.(fear of not being able to debate Obama).

The most interesting thing to me is that most of these arguments were made with provisioning comments like “Although he has a great record…” and “Although he may be the most conservative”…

What’s with the “Although”?

Do we or Do we not want the most conservative candidate? Do we or Do we not elect the candidate via OUR primary process and not by the Media’s Primary process?

Empty hope is never a good substitute for a STRONG RECORD

If your argument against Rick Perry is that he isn’t “selling” you on being the best candidate to beat Barack Obama… then maybe you should be paying attention to just exactly what the other candidates are selling to you.

You realize that your argument against Rick Perry boils down to the fact that you’re betting that other candidate won’t be trashed as bad as Rick Perry.

What about this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and now this, don’t you understand?

Electability is no better an argument than Idol Worship

NO Republican candidate can survive on fluffy media arguments about ‘electability’ against sitting President (Mr. Hope and Change) Barack Obama. What has rockstars and rhetoric gotten us so far?

The Winning strategy is to go after Obama on his missed promises of hope and change. The greatest leverage in that argument is someone that provided REAL HOPE for his constituents, and can make the argument that change is only necessary to bring us in alignment with our Constitution.

As for me, I’m perfectly happy supporting the candidate that best supports conservative causes, rather than trying to tell you “how electable” they are. I support Rick Perry because he has a very competent economic recovery plan. I support Rick Perry because past actions have shown that he acts in the interest of the people by the people by upholding the rule of law. I support Rick Perry because I see eye to eye with him on social issues. I support Rick Perry because he’s proven that he does understand what’s at stake concerning the very volatile foreign policy and security issues our country faces.

Are we so depraved by the MSM that we’re willing to buy their narrative on “electability”?

Just who is judging this electability… The MSM… or registered Republicans?

SHAME on you fellow conservatives that argue electability matters most… You deserve what you get.

I don’t pretend to be an economist. I don’t even think I could begin to teach a remedial class. I am however attempting to take my layman’s knowledge and apply it to current policies in effect.

When the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law by President Barack Obama, most Conservatives viewed this as a D.O.A. answer to the Debt Ceiling Crisis. Why? Because we knew it was kicking the can down the road, and ceding to the Democrats the Pyrrhic victory (as long as we could say “We didn’t raise taxes”). Clearly the Democrats hoped to either get Republicans to raise taxes, and break the club for growth pledge, or they get Defense spending cuts that put Republicans that are lobbied by the military industrial complex to, well, get on the defensive, and attempt to roll back the act all together. In either case austerity loses, and this is precisely what the Democrats want.

In true Keynesian fashion, they believe that if you keep the money moving, you keep growth happening, and if you keep growth happening, you keep people in jobs, as long as you keep money moving which requires massive spending, and never paying off the debt. This is regressive in logic as well as in monetary and economic policy. But as long as you never question how far down the rabbit hole goes, you’ll be able to ignore the fact that you’re regressing infinitely and just lengthening the floating point scale.

So the inevitable happened with the “Super Committee”. So what? We hope to go on to change it as of January 2013 with a glorious victory with our soon to be nominee, right? Not so simple.

Do you remember what the “Crisis” was all about? That’s right the U.S. credit rating. There are generally 3 major credit rating agencies(Moody’s, Fitch, and S&P) that really signal to the world capital markets just exactly what you can expect when it comes to risk when buying treasury notes. The global finance markets aren’t based solely on the value of money aggregates, but money aggregates do determine the global money supply. When the U.S. Faces downgrade… it ripples in the World economy… and what is just a “few basis points” has a wide swath of wealth loss, and risk increase. In addition, when your liquid assets are traded in that particular currency, your buying value evaporates with the lowered value of that currency.

It appears to me, that the Fed Reserve is tight lipped on their tight money policy right now. Even though everything they’re doing would typically signal how loose they’re trying to make the money supply. I know that seems counter-intuitive if you follow money supply basics. Putting on my tin-foil hat with the genuine Luap Nor merchandise tag on the inside of the bill… It would seem that everything that the Fed is doing is attempting to control prices in finance to fix their asset pool, ignoring their own balance sheets. And they seem to be doing it on the back of tax payers, and investors the world over. Rather than fulfilling Keynesian policy of targeting inflation by presenting money velocity to increase nominal GDP. It would seem as though the opening up of their balance sheets for QE1 and QE2 were both meant to allow the U.S. Treasury to print more money. But then in turn Bernanke announces that they’re going to keep interest rates at ‘near zero’ until mid 2013. Why? The best I can figure is banks are still holding a lot of underwater capital assets, and they’re hoping through deflation to pass the balance of liquid loss to tax payers until they can raise rates again, and attempt to restore confidence in global capital markets.

Loose Money traditionally is a considered a punishment to those that save, because it lowers the value of the currency short term. I believe that most people that have money are not investing money, because there really is a lot of risk, so much so, that every policy coming from Washington seems to be that if you take big enough risks, we’ll assist you in spreading the losses to the tax payer, and to your fellow market participants, and prevent you from failing and causing big ripples in the middle class.

This undercuts any market from healing when it goes too far which is why most conservatives espouse Austrian economic philosophy. This mentality of “Too Big To Fail” is the epitome of embracing Booms and Busts. I think everyone knows that there are few markets that are in growth, and therefore, Jobs are not growing. Typically letting loose on the money, inspires borrowing and spending for growth. However, those that are currently in a position to borrow, aren’t doing so. They’re not borrowing because they’d rather bootstrap through their growth right now, than risk being indentured to a market that stifles growth by spreading losses. The free market capitalists would like to see more austerity from the Government on the spending side, so there may be more confidence in paying credit obligations, while ensuring that the dollar is on stable ground so as to get real growth happening again.

I think Bernanke and Obama have the same goal, but for different reasons. Demand for supply is suffering due to the dangers of risk and volatility. Growth can’t happen without demand. At the same time some production is becoming so productive in the process, it’s possible that it’s filling more of the demand gap with less producers, ergo less ‘real growth’.

Obama and the Democrats think they can save the world and save the jobs through spend, spend, spend policies, which will magically make growth happen (even if it is artificial) so they can continue to spend, spend, spend (nothing has changed for the Keynesians).

Growth is the long term goal for the Fed, but the short term is to shed the banking/finance industry’s toxic assets and spread the losses of some REALLY STUPID policies that generated ridiculously false demand which allowed that very same industry to get very bloated for a hell of a run since 1987 on that good ‘ole fashioned artificial growth that Keynesians embrace. The Fed needs a spend, spend, spend government to create demand (even if it is artificial) to buy the banking/finance industry time to rid themselves of the toxic underwater assets that are not backed by the value of a real dollar. Let’s face it, these guys are more concerned with the long term effects in money aggregates than they are of a short term confidence crisis, or the lowering of the value of U.S. Treasury notes.

Obama’s government could continue to print checks and send them to “Too Big To Fail” institutions via TARP, Omnibus Stimulus, GM Bailout, Cash for Clunkers, Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, etc. While making piss poor investments in green energy, and in driving out real growth markets for the sake of getting votes and seats. Eventually the interest payments to our creditors on all this borrowing and spending coming from Obama’s government, will heal and repair the balance sheets to healthier levels utilizing the velocity of money in the relationship to the money balance and nominal GDP against demand, long-term price inflation, and the overall global business cycle. Yes, eventually indeed, but on the backs of tax payers, and U.S. currency investors and participants. But, Why risk it?

Now cometh the supposed “Great Deleveraging”. In the European market global hedge funds have been falling over each other salivating at the prospects to find a fairly decent investment to get involved in since 2008. The politics of the European Union may cause a great deal of tension over their hopes to participate in the deleveraging of European Banks and their toxic assets. There is a hope to buy low and wait for the next boom, but where will the financing come from? Through larger banks and funds that have more solid liquidity of course. That is supposing that there isn’t some “off balance sheet” derivatives games going on that will cause a GIGANTIC STOP to money velocity. This is a VERY dangerous game, and there are a lot of people at the top of all of this being very cavalier with the strength of the middle class in both Europe and more especially in the U.S.

This is the kind of thing that leads to world wars, because someone has to take the blame.

There seems to be no safe place for investment for anyone that hedges in any market. There’s certainly no safety in stuffing devalued paper into the mattress. What used to be a relatively safe place was in the currency market, but with all this borrowing, spending, and printing going on, with credit downgrades… how does that sound now? What seems to be the safest place to be is to either own all your real assets outright, or have an indispensable skill set that few others maintain, or both.

Now, let’s come back to the Super-Committee’s Super Failure… I lay the blame squarely at the feet of Republicans in the House under the leadership of John Boehner, and Republicans in the Senate, that are sanguine to allow the House Republicans take the heat. The Super Committee was designed to fail. Everything else is posturing for the 2012 election. What was gained if anything? ‘Well at least we can say we ‘tried’ to compromise’?

These folks are either entirely ignorant and presume that their pompously important title entitles them to information that allows them to make better judgements than the rest of us regarding matters of economy and policy, or their entirely ignorant of what it means to rely on income that doesn’t come from a taxpayer.

The problem remains… The line has been drawn… There can be no fence sitters on this.

You either stop the spending, forcing investors to take their own losses… allowing the markets to grow/shrink/adjust how they may… knowing nothing of what the unintended consequences will be.

Or

You let them continue to play the very dangerous game… and hope that the ‘GIGANTIC STOP’ doesn’t ever happen.

The United States is only as good as it can be when it can make good on its debts, and remains fiscally sovereign.

By principle it should be very easy to see that somewhere someone threw principles out the window and started viewing this from a numbers perspective, and not by a people perspective. What’s next? Will the Fed start adopting Chinese monetary policy?

I have consistently supported and continue to support Rick Perry in his candidacy for President of the United States of America.

I could bore you to death with details about Rick Perry’s personal life, and try to win you over on his good Christian nature, and his good neighborly demeanor. I’m not going to do that.

I could attempt to defend his debate performances by reminding you that every candidate suffers fatigue on the campaign trail, but his moment just happened to be televised. Even if he dealt with the media storm with candid humor and refreshing honesty, acknowledging that argument would be a concession that weighing a candidate on these over-hyped media matters, well matter… but I won’t… because they don’t.

I could rattle on about the EXEMPLARY record that Gov. Perry had with a conservative legislature, but he’s not running for President of the United State of Texas. So I won’t bother you with the details of how awesome he is at executive leadership in government.

No, I’m not going to open this diary up to ad hominem attacks on his character, demeanor, or supposed gaffe-ability. (Which might I say, if this is what you have against him your case is weak, good luck voting for the right haircut). Yes, I’m ignoring anything that may be considered a misstep by his campaign, every campaign has them, so far, Perry’s campaign has had very little if any that may be construed as significant.

A word concerning the other candidates

My support for Rick Perry does not have to exclude my pseudo-support for conservatives in general. I see nothing wrong with complimenting another candidate or their campaign for presenting a bold idea, or making an excellent point. I don’t think I need to go on about the negatives of other candidates to persuade others to support my favored candidate. I really don’t want to support someone because of “what they are not”… but rather “what they stand for”.

So I’m not interested in hearing endless putdowns of Perry or any other candidate for things that are negative or perceived negative. If you attempt to ask me why I don’t support your alternative to Rick Perry, try to imagine if you will, that it is because I think Rick Perry is the better candidate, rather than assuming I’m just not aware of Rick Perry’s negatives in comparison to your candidate’s negatives. I have and will defend any candidate when they are being inappropriately attacked. That doesn’t mean I don’t support Rick Perry. It just means that I don’t like seeing people that I agree with much of the time attacked for things that are simply pejorative and/or juvenile.

A word concerning the current climate

It is my opinion that society continues to become more and more impatient, as well as less and less civil, more and more judgmental, and less and less accurate in analysis. Primarily because we want answers now. We want instant results. We don’t want to be considered losers. We’re not experienced enough in dealing with the ambiguity with which technology has flooded our daily lives with information overload. The reason muckraking negativity, and bias goes unanswered is we are too disingenuous to provide the target an opportunity to provide an explanation, and we’re wont to accept any explanation because we are cynical. If I may offer quick analysis of our current primary climate. The base of the GOP (which is primarily conservative) is looking for the Anti-Romney, but this same base has either 1) been tossed about to and fro with every wind of doctrine or rumor, having no foundation, and therefore have become proverbial lemmings of the front-running Anti-Romney… or 2) The Polls are wrong, and they’re not asking the right questions to elicit the accurate temperature in the room of the base… or 3) The base is quickly becoming divided and the coalition is pulling in 3 different directions regarding their #1 issue (whatever that may be). Which way are you leaning? Economy? Security? Social Issues? That’s rhetorical of course.

A word concerning the general election

Mark my words, the general election will not be fairly covered by the Media. If you think your candidate of choice will win the general election because they will look good in comparison to Obama during debates, or through attack ads, or while the Media does routine anal probes of every 3rd cousin of the nominee, and anyone that has ever known the candidate personally (that can be documented by photo, preferably time stamped)… will come off better than the other conservative candidates in the race… you’re OUT YO DAMNED MIND!! {So can we dispense with the arguments that the candidate is “photogenic”, “well spoken”, “good debator”, etc?}. The reality is no election was ever won without TURNING OUT THE BASE IN OUTSTANDING ATTENDANCE DUE TO EXCITABILITY OR ABSOLUTE ANGER towards the opposition. When the base turns out in record numbers… so too comes everyone else that wants to be a part of the generated hype of the 4 year event known as Election time. So please… stop causing a malaise on the other conservative candidates… you’re giving the Media the narrative that they want. Look if you want to repent for breaking the 11th commandment… here’s a suggestion. For every dollar you give to your candidate of choice, turn around and give a penny to the other candidate you trashed. (kind of like a swear jar).

Now Please, allow me to now persuade you to vote/support Perry.

I am pragmatic when it comes to politics. I don’t believe Politics, Policy, or Governments in general are capable of solving all or in some cases the majority of the problems in our society. The cost-benefit of having a government is to maintain a rule of law for society, and for the protection of its citizens under that rule of law. Otherwise, yes, I do believe most problems could be resolved at the most local of all levels, the individual. In these United States, we have espoused to unite under the rule of law, and the rule of law was meant to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution binds us together in defense of that cause. If the individual can not resolve a particular issue on their own accord, let them rely on Family, Friends, Societal Associates, Municipalities, Counties, the State, and then maybe the Federal Government. As such the Federal Government should not be the go-to for solving our economic, social, or security problems outside the limited scope of enumerated powers, and separation of said powers that the rule of law (the constitution) has provided.

Therefore what?

I have determined that Rick Perry is the only candidate to date that seems to propose ideas that relates to the above paragraph most consistently.

Allow me to expound

Look, I’m not going to re-write the candidate’s plans here for some lame compare and contrast. However Let me discuss some of my observations about what is important and urgent for citizens of the United States to address, and then I’ll link to the candidate’s websites so you can compare and contrast how their platforms address these issues.

It’s the Economy Stupid

The theme of the general election so far is “It’s the Economy Stupid pt. 2″. This is a gross understatement of where our Republic currently stands. We have a weak economy right now to be sure. It is the most penetrating issue that seems to be universal for all Americans. However the very real and sometimes not so perceived problems our Republic is facing is always one generation away from a slide into tyranny.

No, It’s the Spending Stupid

The Economy’s under-performance is the consequence of an ever expanding Federal Government and its exponential spending. Government’s excessive spending can be directly tied to EVERY idiotic policy that the Federal Government enforces, endorses, or espouses.

I believe that no amount of tax reform, jobs plan that involves new markets, old markets, and reduction in regulations of those markets, and the total repeal of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes Oxley will ever be enough to “jump start” the economy or fix the fundamental problems that our country faces, although these actions would go a long ways towards jobs growth and getting back to where we were.

I have gone on at length regarding this in another POST. An excerpt:

Paucity vs. Prosperity

There is nothing more uncertain in the World Economy among money aggregates than the ability to make good on debts, which provides an environment where investment is not halted by fear of meddling aristocrats and evil projections of total egalitarian or utopian civilizations at the expense of LIBERTY through Class Warfare and division. Throwing aside the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, or non-statutory procedural rules that precludes the actions of any Congress from binding the actions of another Congress in meeting obligations, we should recognize that what establishes the full faith and credit of the United States and its people in the world; is that we meet our obligations, we grow and prosper like no other nation in the world, and provide more opportunities for growth and prosperity to investors like no other nation in the world.

Adjusting the Tax Code may assist, Eliminating the complexity of the Tax code would be quite effective in binding the powers of Congress that leads to crony capitalism, pork barrel projects, and regulation that drowns the competitiveness of our markets. However there are always unintended consequences to consider in removing a monolithic malignant growth from the integrity of our Federal Government’s officers in charge of the purse. Undoubtedly [tax reform...]* will reduce the ability for Congress to not only manipulate how revenues are collected, in order to benefit lobbying firms and their clients, it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to [resolve the problem of]* how our Federal Government justifies double accounting ponzi schemes and borrow and spend tactics that benefit lobbyists and their clients with preferred loans or grants to waste and swindle the “FUTURITY” of our children and grandchildren.

*edited for contextemphasis added

The Economy and our prosperity will hinge on the reigning in of not only government spending, but the ability to manipulate where the spending goes. I believe Rick Perry answers the core of these issues better than any other candidate.

Conclusion

Rick Perry has consistently walked the walk and talked the talk on reducing the size of government, reigning in spending, growing jobs, and building opportunities and has embraced all other national issues from a small government perspective giving the states the power while maintaining a STRONG pro-life record, and making the MOST SENSIBLE Security argument ever regarding zero-based budgeting on foreign aid which should put the fear of God in both our friends and foes that have been given a lot of free lunches for real and *supposed* loyalties.

And he’s done all of this, providing us a track record to compare the rhetoric to the record, while sitting as a 3 term Executive leader in the office of Governor in the state of Texas.

Where does your favored candidate stand?

See for yourself:
Rick Perry – Cut, Balance, and Grow Plan

Herman Cain – Full Policy Proposal Doc

Newt Gingrich – Jobs and Economy

Mitt Romney – Believe in America

Ron Paul – Plan to Restore America

Jon Hunstman Jr. – Jobs and Economy

Michele Bachmann – Generating Jobs and Growth

Rick Santorum – Can’t find nothing but this

[Update - I added Jon Huntsman's link... it was my *oops moment... just forgot him I guess ]

H.G. Wells provided a masterpiece on stretching the limits of societal judgements in the interest of science when he wrote The Island of Dr. Moreau. The treatise by Wells concerning the morality of whether a human can become some demi-God/creator describes a science-fiction process of “vivisection” where animals are given human forms through surgery, and rehabilitation. Wells, a social reformer, was a very didactic writer, and this novel reflects his thoughts and theories about humanity and godliness, by using the ideas and arguments of his time to create a luster about the idea that seemed tantalizing to scientists at the time. During this time Darwin’s theory of natural selection and descent with modification was all the talk in the scientific industry. Darwin’s findings spawned a great debate as to whether or not mankind was among the evidence of natural selection and descent with modification.

The fact is there are two kinds of scientists, those that believe in God, and those that don’t. From there it is up to society to judge for themselves who among the scientific field practices science with intellectual honesty and a degree of acceptable social morality.

Here we are, so much confusion among the electorate of conservatives in the republican primary, we have about a month and a half of solid campaigning prior to the first primary come Jan. 3rd, 2011 in Iowa. There is no consolidation as of yet behind the conservative candidate of choice. There likely won’t be, and we have our collective “selves” to blame for that problem, but I digress.

The Vivisection of the GOP Field

There are great qualities of personal character in each of the GOP candidates. Each candidate has the demonstrated ability to lead to some extent or another. They themselves have repeated the confidence that each has in one another regarding the ability to govern in the Office of POTUS rather than rule in the office of POTUS as our current Dear Leader does. Wouldn’t it be great if we could take the best of each candidate and surgically implant that portion of their brain or heart into some sort of super candidate vessel?

The fact is there are two kinds of electoral voters, those that Deify their candidate, and those that don’t. From there it is up to society to judge for themselves who among the primary field practices politics with intellectual honesty and a degree of acceptable social morality.

Unfortunately we can’t take “the best” of what each candidate can offer and piece them together into some super candidate without baggage. Vivisection is junk science, and its also junk political-science. Shall we weigh our conscience and vote for the person we believe best represents us in the primary? Shall we forgo our hopes for our favored candidate to support a more likely to win conservative candidate, that we may consolidate the base and prevent the media from picking our candidate? Shall we reject the idea that any decision MUST be made before the votes are tallied in the first few contests if we live in a state that has a latter primary date?

I am of the opinion that unless I have distant relatives that live in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Michigan, et al states prior to Super Tuesday, that I am able to directly influence with negative comments about the competition, then it may be a waste of time to tear down other candidates in contrast to my favored candidate (Rick Perry) for “personal” or “persona” issues. Instead I enjoy watching the debates, and seeing where the discussion leads. There are great distinctions in their policies and views, but not so significant that they are totally out of line with conservatism (Even Romney *sounds* conservative at times).

To Err is Human, but to Forgive is Divine

It won’t matter which candidate ends up as the nominee, get used to paying the baggage fee when we send our nominee to the White House for inauguration folks. So what baggage is socially and morally acceptable in your world? We conservatives need to be careful about creating a “malaise” issue when it comes to political confidence in our candidates. Otherwise we may find ourselves completely short of a win against the much more important Obamanomic Malaise which I believe we can all agree its time to rid ourselves of that.

I think its time we took an honest look at ourselves and figure out ‘what manner of electorate ought we to be’? I think its ridiculous how the ‘candi-bots’ have salivated and come out in droves, to bemoan the weaknesses of some other candidate as the MSM has spoon fed the machine of chattering class morons with the pot-stirring stick called negativity. The candi-bots prove to be as vicious with their commentary as liberals on a foaming mouthed rant.

Wherein lies the forgiveness for the baggage? Are we looking for some puritanical political virgin? Or are we the type that seems to think our candidate is Superman/woman sent to rid America of the evil that prevents our exceptionally American Greatness? Is it possible for each of us to back off a little bit from our extremely high expectations for a candidate to qualify for ‘nominee that I could support’? And where are the electoral voters that repeat the mantra: “the person I ‘really’ wanted to run was candidate x, but they declined, so I’m just going to sit back and laugh with schadenfreude as each of the declared candidates proves themselves ‘less worthy’ of my vote”. As if the outcome of the nominating process is below them.

Media Bias

I wrote about Media Bias and its effects in the 2008 election:

Bias in the media whether real or perceived tends to be more systemic wherein events and subjects are selected for coverage by agenda and purpose. Media bias is the abject representation and/or framing of an article by a journalist regardless of tone where an absence of objectivity is detected. Sometimes this bias is individually created by a journalist. Sometimes it is the cause of editorial work that prevents the unprejudiced consideration of subjects related to political and social issues. Admittedly, there are many limitations in journalism that prevent total objectivity, which is why bias is more the complaint of subjective writing rather than objective. However, in our free society, the United States, we experience freedom of the press that offers a free market for journalists to present both their writing and opinion. Journalists are often employed or syndicated and in order to get published they must write the types of articles that editors and news outlets desire to publish.

The Society of Professional Journalists states,

The duty of the journalist is to further [public enlightenment] by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with throroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility. (Society of Professional Journalists)

Examples of the device of bias in journalism are substantiated when one detects the following: stereotypes, loaded language, double standards in juxtaposition, unchallenged assumptions, or when stories on important issues are omitted. When journalists do not disclaim a writing as opinion it is assumed they are writing an objective and comprehensive article, and when devices of bias are employed and detected in said article it becomes an issue of journalistic integrity and is labeled as bias.

It should be clear to discerning conservatives that each and every narrative that is framed by the Media after each debate is purposed to cause infighting. They hope to discredit all conservative candidates. They do not want a stark contrast to Obama, they hope to see Romney go up against Obama, this is the safest bet for them. Is it not clear that the “supposed” front runner of the week that is challenging Romney in the “not-Romney” polls, is immediately caught up in some ridiculous controversy that is conjured up by the standing “Journolist” media membership?

Regardless of who the nominee shall be, the MSM will drudge up our vomit bags and remind us of some controversial comment/policy position/personal baggage/perceived persona flaw etc. They will attempt to suggest that all that makes Obama great, is all that makes Republicans awful. They will attempt to deflate the Republican party base with every attempt to play on emotions that are insignificant. They will rehash every issue that pits Conservatives against Republicans against Independents and so on. They will do all of it using the devices of bias, which to the untrained eye, is just another news report.

Remember, they’ll Bork you and your candidate and the nominee any way they can.

Why is there not more civility in politics? Is it that greater controversy leads to greater exposure? Is it that ends justify the means? or Could it be that our societal civil virtues are bankrupt because our personal moral virtues are lacking?

First and foremost Civility does not require Compromise. Standing firm in your resolutions, speaking voraciously in defense of your guiding principles, and/or being loyal to your family, friends, compatriots, and associations in similar manner, does not require you to espouse uncivil discourse. Remaining civil, reasonable, and without guile is not a compromise of your principles, rather it is the very embodiment of the very things that makes a conservative, conservative.

‘Politics’ was once explained to me by a friend as “a means to prevent the bludgeoning of one another over local, regional, and inter-regional conflict”. To this day, I think its a better application than Tip O’Neill’s “All politics is local” memo. Contrasting these two views, one may conclude that both begin at the local level, and both usually end up at the national/international level. Both acknowledge that conflict springs eternal yet civility may prove useful in avoiding the ascendency of fisticuffs to war. All the while presuming that conflict may be swept under the rug through commonality and compromise, and the massaging of the ego or the pocketbook of the one or many. It is cynical in either view.

Politics is the medium in the which we debate the causes that we espouse seeking to impose policy that either leads to liberty or tyranny. Political parties are the collaborative efforts of many with similar ethos and emphasis on issues that civic confrontation exists upon. Too often we seek to win battles on issues that are distracting us from moving forward. Too often we seek to hide our faces from evil practices for the fear that we may be imposing too much morality on the sum whole of society. Liberty is a powerful force, it enables mankind to move forward with creativity, invention, innovation, competition, and improvements. However, Liberty will never be won through timid, weak-willed, or immoral practices. Tyranny however will progress evermore when a society becomes morally bankrupt. Often history has taught us that war, famine, pestilence, and any other divine or non-devine intervention sets a new course for a new generation.

Too often our fears for offense may cause us to cower from tough political discourse where our assumptions are challenged, and sometimes we are reduced to throwing pearls of wisdom before swine. Sometimes the swine reduces us further into wrestling in the mud, or enticing us to invite it into our home and dress it in formal attire with lipstick to pretty up the ugliness. What silliness ensues as we begin to bicker and argue and speak in sardonic tomes of sarcasm and cynicism. To what end will this sort of non-civility provide an ecumenical benefit to society? Maybe we’ll eat less pork? I live in Oklahoma, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

The take away here is that we shouldn’t be wasting our time trying to convince Swine to dapper up and join us. However to borrow a concept from a 19th century preacher Dwight L. Moody that once preached a sermon regarding the “lower lights” of a shoreline and the purpose of guiding the wayfaring sea voyage and its captain safely to shore so as to avoid the dangers of a rocky and tumultuous bay. The image is daunting as we consider that without the lower lights of the harbor brightly beaming to bring others safely in by lighting the way to navigate the dangers of a shallow and jagged shoreline and by preventing a very preventable cold and watery grave. He summed up the sermon with “Brethren, the Master will take care of the great light-house; let us keep the lower lights burning.” The sermon inspired the words to the Gospel Hymn “Let the Lower Lights Be Burning” by Philip P. Bliss ca. 1871:

Brightly beams our Father’s mercy,
From His lighthouse evermore,
But to us He gives the keeping
Of the lights along the shore.
Refrain:
Let the lower lights be burning!
Send a gleam across the wave!
Some poor struggling, fainting seaman
You may rescue, you may save.
Dark the night of sin has settled,
Loud the angry billows roar;
Eager eyes are watching, longing,
For the lights along the shore.
Trim your feeble lamp, my brother;
Some poor sailor, tempest-tossed,
Trying now to make the harbor,
In the darkness may be lost.

emphasis mine

If conservatives desire to continue on in such a great cause, they must seek to teach with humility and without guile a younger generation. It is too easy to assume that as our youth grow older, that they may consequently grow wiser too. Is Conservatism is at a great disadvantage here too? Nay. Often times our message can not be tailored to the whim of the masses, or the populism of class warfare. However, even though correctness is not always easy to identify without having had some experience in life, parents, grandparents, and people of trust have the advantage to influence the youth greatly when done without hypocrisy and guile. This may be why it seems a difficult challenge in speaking to vessels whose cup is full, or to vessels that refuse in libertarian-libertine fashion to not allow anything to fill their cup, as they pretend to be so self-sufficient as if they are not required to live by community standards.

Acrimonious Confrontation

It is a temptation to assume to know you have the upper hand in any disagreement. It is an even greater temptation to know you have the upper hand, and to see a means of exploiting that hand to your gain through guile and/or acrimony.

What is gained when truth is grounded to a faulty foundation? All that is needed to remove the truth, is to remove the faulty foundation. Truth does not remain relevant to the abused conscience.

It should be clear that the Media is biased to any critical thinker. What is the media’s purpose but to make everyday acts ceremonious, sensational, and controversial? Why should we pay such attention to such muckrakers and pot stirrers? The great measure of a gonzo journalist is to create a “there” when there is nothing there. To the vain and foolish generation they will seek after the signs and invent their ‘there’ until possibly something appears or they are proven fruitless. What is the downside to the vain and foolish if all that is left for them, is to remain such? Some may suggest we are at a disadvantage because they have nothing to lose. They are wrong. We have every bit the advantage, for we have everything to lose. Doubtless we must ever be the vanguard, the very lower lights that will lead the honest in heart safely to harbor.

Keep this in mind in the coming months my dear conservative men and women at arms. Doubtless what Mr. Cain is experiencing is but a sliver of what is prepared for any who is deemed victorious in the primary. It matters not where the “there” came from, what matters most, is that we stand by our principles. That we speak truth from a foundation of rock and not from the washy sand of hypocrisy. I would that we spend more time seeking truth, rather than passing barbs and seeking the destruction of our fellows. That we may be found spending our time and energy espousing the things that are of most import.

Let us not fall victim to the devices of evil namely: Deception, Fear, Contention, Division, and outright lies spun into tangled webs that ultimately distracts us from keeping our “lower lights” from burning.

P.S. I do believe that the most effect we may have in politics happens locally. Yes, it behooves us to get involved locally if we are permitted the time.

In January of 1999, I was 18, young, proud, and thought myself intelligent. Maybe 2 things have changed since then, time, and my “independent” mindset.

Pardon me if this diary seems a bit scattered. I am attempting to process a lot of my thoughts and emotions as the Man that had the greatest impact and most influence in my life passed away 2 minutes to the midnight hour last night. My Grand-Dad was the primary father figure in my life growing up as my parents were divorced while I was at the tender age of 5 and a great distance divided me from day to day interaction with my father.

My maternal Grand Dad (a.k.a, Grandpa B. or Dr. Beckstrom) was by trade an educator. However he will always be known for his gentlemanly qualities, his patriarchal legacy, his historical knowledge of all things in his hometown, his work ethic, and of course his wisdom and charitable nature. His father left him a legacy that he was always happy to reminisce. I hope to do him justice and relate it to the purpose of this blog.

Grand-dad grew up in the great depression, he knew the value of hard work and maintaining a reputation through merit and goodly nature. He always said that they never really knew it was the great depression, because they just worked through it as a family, and the community took care of each other. My grandmother had 12 siblings, they raised chickens, had a milk cow, and worked in a vegetable garden while all the boys pitched in. Grand-dad became a permanent fixture around that home as he couldn’t resist my great-grandmother’s cooking which was passed on to my grandmother. It was something he spoke of with joyful revelry.

As such, he never missed an opportunity to teach a lesson by history. On one such occasion as he was reminiscing about his times at my grandmother’s home. At this time I was the age of 16 and and currently attending driver’s ed to gain the mobility of having a personal driver’s license. On that occasion he turned and told me ‘You know son, when I was your age, I was engaged to your grandmother’… that was his way of relating that you’re never too young to take on responsibility, it was also his way of suggesting that I shouldn’t act like the other 16 year old punks of my generation.

‘Dadsy’ was always one to invite people to come along to his way of thinking in a special sorta way. Knowing my proclivity to argue a point until my opponents became so frustrated that they either clammed up or went about feeling personally abused, he’d gently remind “Justin, you can’t win a pissing battle with a skunk’. Which to me was his way of letting me know that when arguing I should know when its going to do some good, or when I should just avoid the contention all together.

Grandpa B. was ‘grandpa’ to just about ever vagrant neighborhood child or hoodlum that ever dared to clean up enough to sit at the Sunday table and enjoy the best that Granny B had to offer by way of mashed potatoes, gravy, a roast, and various salads, vegetables and deserts. Every Sunday may as well have been a Thanksgiving feast. So pardon me if this seems a little nostalgic… but I always was the lucky one to sit to his left, as Granny B sat to his right. I assume he had me there as I was ‘that one’ that needed the under table kick to the shin, or knee grab, to remind me to be polite and bite my tongue before opening up an unpleasant mood with my unbridled boisterous tongue. That table was a place for all types of discussion that ranged from politics, philosophy, religion, and probably most importantly, it was an opportunity for Grand-Dad to learn what what going on in the lives of each attendant, so he could know just what each individual needs may be. He once told my sister in a time of desperation and self-destruction that ‘there would be no empty chairs at our table’ which was his way of letting the rest of us know through her that Grandpa doesn’t give up on anyone, and neither should we.

Grand-Dad was a lay minister and Bishop in his local congregation for a period of time between 1973-1979. He was respected for his faith and his willingness to serve and give of himself. He fulfilled assignments with dutiful glee and was always willing to pitch in and help. At the same time he was working as a principal at an elementary school in the public school system, as well as going to school for his doctorate in English. He obtained his Ph.D the very day after he was released as Bishop in his lay ministry. He said to me ‘Son, if ever you wish to accomplish anything, make sure you’re busy doing the Lord’s work simultaneously, and it will get done.’ Again, his way of letting me know that faith matters a great deal, and that when we ‘seek first the Kingdom of God, then all these things should be added unto [us]‘.

Grand-dad’s wisdom had a far reaching effect in each of us, he was loving, kind, and respectful. He wasn’t afraid to say it plainly, but again did so in a way that made you think twice about the state of ground you stood upon. One such occasion to which my opening paragraph alludes to. As a peculiar 16 yr old, I was interested in national politics. It started in 1992 when my mother showed absolute devastation at the loss of the election for Republicans and re-election for President George H.W. Bush. At 12 years of age, I remember my mother aghast at the thought of Bill Clinton becoming our president (clearly Grand-Dad’s influence had made strong impressions on my mother, which in turn made a strong impression on me).

From 12 to 16 I paid an inordinate amount of attention that any teenager would to national politics and goings on of wars, and rumors of wars, famines, pestilence, earthquakes in diverse places, and of course all other signs that I felt my generation would need to be ready to lead on. I don’t know why this innate feeling took such a hold on my heart, but I believe it was the product of the environment I was raised in.

I remember clearly having a discussion in the fall of ’96 prior to the election. For some reason, I think I had espoused the attitude that Bob Dole was too old (hey I was 16)… At the same time I thought Ross Perot seemed to speak to libertarian principles that I felt were constitutional in nature. I made some mention to Grand-Dad that I think more people should embrace the independent and ditch Bob Dole and the Republican party. Grand-Dad smiled at me and said, ‘Good luck with that’.

2 years later I was 18, and 1998 didn’t bid as well as expected come November for the Republican party. There was not a grand political capitalization for Republicans. In my haughty mind I felt like Republicans deserved the disappointment as I was quickly becoming a libertarian-independent. Grand-Dad volunteered at the senior citizen’s center as a tax preparer. He assisted me with my taxes that year, and the question came up, “Do you want to have $2 donated to the political party of your choice”. I told him ‘no’. He began to explain to me that it didn’t come out of my return and I ought to check it yes for the Republican party. I told him I didn’t care, and that my answer was still ‘no’ as I had developed a dislike for money in politics. He asked me why, and as I explained to him that nobody ought to get money from revenues to support their political agendas, it just seemed to me like they could raise 2 dollars somewhere else, and Republicans especially didn’t need my help. I still feel that way about donating money to a party. However, he asked me why I wouldn’t help Republicans, I told him that I felt like they were too far removed from constitutional principles of limited government and that independents would help steer this country back on track, and I preferred to be unaffiliated with any party. To which he smiled and said ‘Go ahead and make yourself irrelevant’. Which was his way of letting me know that I wasn’t as up on the matter as my suppositions had led me to believe.

There never was a further word in that conversation. It did lead me to questioning the ground that I was pretending to stand upon. Since then I’ve tried to be self-aware of the things I am ignorant of, and to not make assumptions or allow presumption to determine the outcome of my heavy opinions. He has taught me to be honest in my heart, and to espouse the cause that would both align my mind and my heart, and until they are aligned, the matter may not be so etched in stone.

In the last week when he had his first stroke, I attended to him at his bedside for a few days along with other family members. He was still capable of limited conversation, and was quite clear about his simple desires. He demanded cleanliness asking for a shower and for someone to please comb his hair while waiting in the emergency room for diagnosis, this man a fan of the Aquanet product, always had his hair perfectly straightened. He continually asked for a taste of his beloved Diet Cherry Dr. Pepper (to which we were able to sponge a taste at first, but we were instructed that we could not allow him to sip for fear of his receiving pneumonia if the beverage went down the wrong pipe). In one final lesson of personal liberty and empowerment of the will of the individual, Grandad and I found one another alone. He asked for a sip of his beloved drink. I warned of the risk, to which he was willing to take, as I went ahead and snuck one sip of his drink when nobody was looking. I declared, this is our secret grandpa, I’m sure the nurses and the family would run me out and run me down if they knew I was ignoring the doctor’s orders. I told him that I was sorry I couldn’t allow him to have more… In many ways we were connected by mindset, and I believe we both knew his time was limited regardless of any risk. After his parched throat was relieved with his favorite artificially sweetened beverage. He clearly stated to me… ‘Don’t ever apologize for being a good Samaritan’. Which was his way of letting me know that in life, we have simple pleasures, and sometimes it’s O.K. to ‘lighten up’.

I am ever grateful for his legacy and his attendance to my needs as a patriarch, a mentor, a father figure, and most importantly as one who loved me perfectly enough to remind me in gentle ways how I err. I am comforted by the knowledge of the resurrection, and my faith in Jesus Christ, I am most grateful and look forward to the day when I shall be re-united with this great man. And from now until that day, I will continue to espouse the issues and the causes that align both my mind and my heart, and fight the good fight. Conservative in the primary, Republican in the general. My how we learn when we’re willing. Thank you Grand-Dad.

The lamentations of a people scorned avail nothing without the collective action of individuals fighting for one unifying cause, freedom.

I am tired of society dealing in the fairness of outcomes… otherwise stated as absolute and total egalitarianism. I say, please, allow me to determine for myself my own destiny, and anyone else I grant the same privilege. If you prove more successful than I, the cause shall never be ratified by anything more than perceived success, a very limited and subjective median. Rather outcomes are conditioned events of causality leading to the conditions of new events or repeated events. Ultimately, my freedom can never be taken from me while I have breath in this body regardless of the conditions that I may be required to live. It is thus for I will always have the choice to learn in any environment or condition, and from any event that I experience I will continue to worship in my heart that which I keep sacred.

As James Madison stated: Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

It has been and will always be the nature of all creation to manipulate said powers of knowledge for material and immaterial gain. I should wonder what can we possibly gain that can be had and yet avail more freedom both collectively and individually?

The “reality” is that knowledge and learning may avail many desires which brings about the causation of events. I should wonder which desires lead to an increase in both collective and individual freedom for myself and others? Is it Duty to wonder such?

Facts do exist, and they’re pesky only to those who fail to understand the purpose of their existence.

I say to the “ordinary people” become extraordinary or fail magnificently attempting to do so. Do not let the fools of derision and malice control you through your ignorance.

You say you wish that Your had more freedom to change the political landscape… WAKE UP! In America, Amateurs become Entrepreneurs, and they determine their own destiny, because they have unalienable rights of freedom.

Although it may seem that our freedom is slipping from us… because we set our hearts and desires as a people upon imperfect political saviors that divide the ignorant by faction and issue, that they may continue to manipulate knowledge and enslave a people by spending our collective futures into sunk loss capital, thereby widening the transitional chronological gap of events and conditions that lie between the title of Amateur and Entrepreneur, for the sole purpose of personal perceived gains at the cost of shared losses and risk. I say damn their lying eyes and mouths, and stop elevating their socioeconomic status. If I choose risk and loss, so be it. But do not yoke me with the chains of economic damnation due to the transgressions of wicked fools that will manipulate the minds and hearts of good people everywhere to accomplish their evil and designs. And why are they fools? Because they believe they can overturn the war against evil for their advantage.

Socialism’s evil secret is that it doesn’t exist, rather it is ideological myth that leads to oppression and factitious rule either by fascists or proletariat elites.

Communism’s greatest folly is the is the silly notion that mankind collectively can be honest in dealing with their fellows individually.

Democracy is a foolish notion that majority rule is always the correct action.

Republicanism fails in the hearts of those elected to represent and deal both honestly and justly in even proportion.

Capitalism fails by greed and wicked manipulations that enslaves the laborers collectively.

It is no accident that the United States of America was formed as a republic that governs it finances through capitalistic tendencies. Checks and balances among systemic implementations of rule by the people, for the people, and of the people is and always will be the path to freedom among societies not governed by Eternal Laws.

The constitution is an inspired document born of pure intent to protect freedom both individually and collectively. Our implementation of said system is not perfect, it never was supposed that it could be… thus we were warned by Franklin when asked “What do we have a republic or a monarchy?”, he responded “A republic, if you can keep it.” By definition a republic is meant to be a system of laws that governs public objects by whatever substantive commonly agreed measurement that predicates shared ownership or authority to act upon such objects. It was NEVER intended to govern private objects. Nor was it designed to subject the people to subjective status.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently wrote:

“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

As it goes, it seems that this government is slipping into such intolerable cruelty as elitist despots give us a hypocritical dosage of shared losses in the name of socially shared gains for an absolute and total egalitarian cause. It is madness to the eye of truth, it is evil to the soul that loves freedom.

Do I support an overthrow of our system… The answer, NO!

“As prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light or transient causes;”.

I do however hope and expect that Americans will strip these despots of their supposed authority to act in the best interest of personal principal, rather than personal principle in which they are elected to represent the body of the electorate. This intent to manipulate an ignorant body of people SHALL NOT STAND, as it is an aggression of the importunate demands of our willingness to remain ignorant collectively. Our system is not perfect, but our desire to rid ourselves of ignorance maintains the checks and balances that ensure a free nation. Woe be unto this people if they fail to rid themselves of ignorance and are manipulated into forfeiting their sovereign duty to remain free.

Mark my words… Obama will go down in history as “Jimmy Carter part 2″. The people will be satisfied with the result, and most likely they shall be lulled into a carnal security, and a new manipulator will rise to power to challenge the ignorance of the people.

In this country we are always one generation away from the total loss of freedom, resulting in the death of the pursuit of happiness. Which consequently is termed to mean property in all forms from public or individual distinctions to physical and intellectual distinctions. It is because the constitution exists and our people are taught to love freedom and to secure it that we will continue to “keep it”, this OUR republic.

Enough Analysis…

It suffices me to say…If you love freedom, get involved in your local political events, and prevent the Political Class Elites from getting elected, regardless of the color of their state or party affiliation.

[cross-posted at thestandardcandle.com]

PREFACE
This diary came from a comment in response to the honorable Mr. Rooster aka – The Gamecock of Gamecocks, the DeVine of Redstate, and as such my considered friend indeed.

PRE-AMBLE

The failure of Mr. Jeffress to articulate his response to a gotcha question is most regrettable.  Make no mistake, the object of the media question was to drive division on a potential nominee among the base of Republican voters.  Failure on the part of Christian Pastors that attempt to wear two hats in both the fellowship of their faith and their calling to witness for Christ, while attempting to explain why it is better for Christians to vote for a non-Christian rather than a “false christian” is by very word and deed a judgement pronounced on a fellow Christian, not the Mormon.

It is without a doubt a REAL issue for some, if not many, Christians to vote for someone that does not share their personal faith.  I have always been of the position that YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION on the matter.

But let me be clear… I vehemently DISAGREE with your OPINION.  AND IF YOU’RE WEAK MINDED STOP READING NOW!

Read More →

Fellow citizens, you’re being cheated!

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose”.

- John Maynard Keynes, economist and author of “The Economic Consequences Of The Peace”

It is without little wonder to your average conservative minded pro-free market individual just exactly why it is dangerous to pick winners and losers in the free market. Are we doing enough to message our concerns to others?

President Barack Obama is without a doubt working to destroy our way of life. I don’t consider him the ‘evil incarnate of the Anti-Christ in political garb’… he very well may be perfectly amiable to share a beer with over chit chat about golf, or basketball. However, it is my considered opinion that the measures he has taken as Commander in Chief has been to undermine the financial strengths of our nation, while distracting us with horrible foreign policy maneuvers, and an all out assault on the morally responsible culture of our Nation.

Know your Enemy is Ignorance, and Apathy

For all our directed outrage at President Obama regarding his “I’m just trying to spread the wealth” mantra, or gross infringements on the principles of the Constitution being violated by the GM Bailout, or Solyndra’s investments, and any other failed Stimulus project, we must be cognizant of the fact that it was Congress that gave him the money to waste.

Prosperity does not require the cost of disparity among socioeconomic definitions designed to drive wedges among “We the People”. Fighting disparity by suggesting that prosperity is rooted in evil rather than fighting the idleness of sloth is the preeminence of Envy (a deadly sin indeed). Suggesting that Greed is what drives prosperity is the preeminence of Pride (a deadly sin indeed).

Money is not emotion. When emotion determines what we do with our money, the result tends to be the loss of prosperity. We are all stewards within our sphere of influence, and to each is owned the right to grow or shrink their sphere of influence. When it comes to Money aggregates there is but one protection that no government can interfere with, and that is the ETERNAL VIGILANCE of a PEOPLE that will NEVER lay down their LIBERTIES, for some sense of economic security whether real or perceived.

“[B]elieving, as I do, that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient. And I sincerely believe, with [John Taylor], that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” — Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Taylor on May 28, 1816

Now I will dismiss any ridiculous thoughts that suggest Thomas Jefferson was totally against banking… instead in the context of this quote, he was discussing an established bank for the Federal Government. Again, the purse strings of Treasury, and all things attached belong to Congress, and not one dime is spent without Congress approving the expense through legislation, again it was Congress that commissioned the Federal Reserve. It was congress that designed fractional reserve banking. It is Congress that is able to provide a Budget to the Executive to establish regulatory commissions, which are KILLING competition at this time, and more recently are outright KILLING markets!

VIGILANCE

We should be ever vigilant in issues of social conduct where the rule of law applies. We should be equally vigilant in defending liberty and freedom for ourselves, and our allies, and in being a force for great good inasmuch as we are applying our actions as a Nation through the lens of the rule of law. And of course, The Constitution of this great land is perfectly clear on the matters of Economy, regarding protections for Private Property, protections in the Freedom of Enterprise and Choice, that motives of Self-interest shall be protected, that competition will be protected, that prices and markets will be allowed to adjust on their own merits without interference from government unless regulation is needed to protect competition. Finally, none of these provisions in the Constitution can happen, without Recognizing the importance of LIMITED GOVERNMENT. The VERY essence of Article I Section 8, The Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government Specifically Congress.

When seeking for a Presidential Candidate… We must remember that economic plans are designed not necessarily for immediate implementation, but to guide Congress on what legislation will allow the Executive to do what is ‘proper and necessary’ to fulfill its role. So why do Presidential Candidates propose these plans? Primarily to coalesce the will of the people behind their platform, in order to put pressure on Congress, as WE are STILL the PEOPLE. In some form it shows a degree of competence in understanding how to provide CONFIDENCE to the markets, through STABILITY, and INCENTIVE… you see Markets don’t respond very well to unknowns generally known as Risk… The higher the Risk, the lower your pool of investors becomes.

Paucity vs. Prosperity

There is nothing more uncertain in the World Economy among money aggregates than the ability to make good on debts, providing an environment where investment is not halted by fear of meddling aristocrats and evil projections of total egalitarian or utopian civilizations at the expense of LIBERTY through Class Warfare and division. Throwing aside the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, or non-statutory procedural rules that precludes the actions of any Congress from binding the actions of another Congress in meeting obligations, we should recognize that what establishes the full faith and credit of the United States in the world, is that we meet our obligations, and we grow and prosper like no other nation in the world, and provide more opportunities for growth and prosperity to investors like no other nation in the world.

What the United States of America needs is A Balanced Budget Amendment. To reign in the excessive spending of all branches of the government authorized by Congress.

Adjusting the Tax Code may assist, Eliminating the complexity of the Tax code would be quite effective in binding the powers of Congress that leads to crony capitalism, pork barrel projects, and regulation that drowns the competitiveness of our markets. However there are always unintended consequences to consider in removing a monolithic malignant growth from the integrity of our Federal Government’s officers in charge of the purse. Undoubtedly the FairTax or the watered down version of 999 will reduce the ability for Congress to not only manipulate how revenues are collected, in order to benefit lobbying firms and their clients, it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on how our Federal Government justifies double accounting ponzi schemes and borrow and spend tactics that benefit lobbyists and their clients with preferred loans or grants to waste and swindle the “FUTURITY” of our children and grandchildren.

For me SUPPORTING THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT is not a “lip service” bullet point. In the Next Debate… I want to see the contenders SPEND TIME convincing me they understand that “It’s not just the economy STUPID, but it’s also THE SPENDING”.

Please for the life of me, can we move past questioning the integrity of the candidates over ridiculous episodes of personal history? Can we stop giving SOUNDBITES to MASS MEDIA which will stir contention and provide distraction out of PERSONAL MOTIVE? Can we get past the back-biting rhetoric? Can we end the saber rattling, chest thumping anger? Can someone, please, anyone of you on stage STAND UP AND GIVE US OUR MEDICINE?

PLEASE I’M BEGGING YOU CANDIDATES

– What made Reagan so appealing was his ability to DIMINISH arguments of “redistribution” while promoting OPTIMISM, and PEACE THROUGH PROSPERITY, he was not afraid to Demand MORALITY in government both in our domestic house, and in foreign lands. ARE YOU GOING TO HIDE YOUR CANDLE UNDER A BUSHEL? OR ARE YOU GOING TO HELP US GET BACK TO BEING THE SHINING CITY ON THE HILL? All I ask of you candidates is to tell me HOW you intend to do this.

PLEASE I’M BEGGING YOU CITIZENS

– BE EVER VIGILANT… You as Thomas Jefferson stated “…are the safest repository of your own rights.” As great as it is to be a part of a winning campaign for your candidate… it is EVER more important to understand WHAT you are fighting FOR, not WHO your are CAMPAIGNING AGAINST!

Jeff Foxworthy infamous for his comedy routine regarding the identification of rednecks has provided a framework in identifying the cultural links among people who have identity markers due to their social behaviors. His mastery in delivery and timing was such that all audiences could understand his quick quips and punchlines that helped everyone understand a little better just how a redneck sees the world.

Take a look around you… “just look around you”… are you tired of the {insert candidate name here}-bot comments? You know who I’m talking about.

I thought we could build a list of “general” you-might-be-a-candidate-bot jokes…or CANDI-BOT that way when dealing with a candidate-bot you can just refer them to your comment…

Are you a Candi-bot? Do you like to take your ball and go home if people aren’t sweet on your candidate of preference?

Here’s a list to start it off…:

If you’re blood pressure rises when someone misquotes your candidate, you might be a candi-bot.

If you like to argue that your candidate is the only electable candidate, you might be a candi-bot.

If your friends and family groan when you mention your candidates name, you might be a candi-bot.

If you’ve missed time from work in order to catch up on your candidate’s YouTube channel, you might be a candi-bot.

If someone made fun of your straw-man argument, and it hurt your feelings, you might be a candi-bot.

If you have no less than 20 cats, you’re agoraphobic, and you don’t play nice with others, but you’re willing to go to a book store to have your book signed by your candidate, you might be a candi-bot.

If you use biblical references to describe the manifest destiny of your candidate, you might be a candi-bot.

And the obvious one: If your handle is {insert candidate last name}4Prez, you just might be a candi-bot.

Join in the fun…

[UPDATED WITH YOUR INSPIRATION]

If you try to remove the oil funnel from another candi-bot’s eye while you spraying WD-40 in your own eye … you might be a candi-bot.

{H/T: CraigPennsylvania}

If you declare intentions to vote for Obama if your candidate is not the GOP nominee, you might be a candi-bot

If you are convinced everyone else is naive because he/she does not support your candidate’s every position, you might be a candi-bot.

If you have the same reaction to an interactive poll which has your candidate in the lead as a teenage boy has when he clicks on a Victoria’s Secret ad, you might be a candi-bot.

{H/T: acat}
If you can’t wait to copy and paste the latest from your candidates’ web site to Red State so everyone can be enlightened, you might be a candi-bot.

{H/T: Lineholder for inspiration}

If you’re concerned your candidate doesn’t wear a flak jacket in front of a live debate audience you might be a candi-bot

If you avoid major league baseball satellites on your way to a stump speech you might be a candi-bot

If you use a proxy to avoid IP address detection when you make a comment you might be a candi-bot

{H/T: Remington Steele}
If your last four diaries are about your candidate, You know you’re a candi-bot.

If you have no diaries and >90% of your comments are about your candidate, You know you’re a candi-bot.

If you have to Kowalski multiple times on a 20 paragraph essay-comment, because you keep finding new ways to say the same thing about your candidate, you might be a candi-bot. (modified)

{H/T: Paula}
If you say things like…’If you met him, I’m sure you’d like him!”… you might be a candi-bot.

If you’ve broken the rules and registered here (or anywhere) under 2 or more ID”s so you can “spread the truth” about your candidate. Because the ends justify the means, right?… you might be a candi-bot.

If you spread the truth by spreading lies about the other guy, you might be a candi-bot.

If you justify your bad behavior, by the election of your messiah, you might be a candi-bot.

If you assume others need to meet your candidate personally in order to seal the deal, you might be a candi-bot. {and also a bad judge of character}

{H/T: SoFiMil}
You just might be a Candi-Bot if you’re mistaken for a troll.
If a site troll asks that you be banned because you’re not with their union, you might be a candi-bot.

{H/T: Runner12}
You may be a candi-bot if one of your closets has been recently converted to a shrine for said candidate.

{H/T: The Kim Kardashian of Blogging – Moe Lane}
If I already know what you’re going to post…just by seeing your username, you might be a candi-bot.

If EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that you’ve ever made has been about [INSERT CANDIDATE'S NAME HERE], you might be a candi-bot.

If your comment about [INSERT CANDIDATE'S NAME HERE] recent policy reversal has ever made somebody mutter “I see that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia,” you might be a candi-bot.

If I’ve stopped reading your comments because you never say anything interesting about any candidate anymore and never swear, you may be a candi-bot.

{H/T: Repair_Man_Jack}
If you show up at your favored candidate/messiah’s rally and the entire room disperses from around you, you might be a candi-bot

If your messiah catches your eye and face-palms dejectedly at the sight of your presence, you might be a candi-bot

If you wet yourself like an excited puppy when you see your candidate [you have bladder control issues], and you might be a candi-bot.

{Well played! – The practical use in the comments of other diaries}
{You Done Been Banned Edition!}
If you posit a conservative purge on conservatives so your candidate is more electable… you might be a candi-bot…

{You Done Been Banned Edition!}
Now Now Now, if the best you can come up with is “creepy”…your trolling skills are lame, ergo you might be a candi-bot!

{DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Edition}
If you haven’t done your homework and call for the banning of the site’s Editor-in-Chief… you might be a candi-bot!

{MATHS!}
If you make up 22% of your comments with the same 22% comment 22% of the time, you might be a candi-bot.

{H/T: acat}
If the math you use to make the case for your candidate resembles something from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, you’re probably a candi-bot.

{H/T:RightWingMom52}
If you never provide a link to anything you claim, you might be a candi-bot

If acat has ever posted a recipe in reply to you, you might be a candi-bot.

{Variations on a theme edition: Issue-Bots (H/T: WestCoastPatriette)}
If you can re-use all of your outdated “raise-awareness” tees to from the last ten years to make a quilt, you might be an issue-bot.

If you have run out of room in your garage for soap boxes, you might be an issue-bot!

{I know you all have a lot more to offer… Keep them coming and thanks for your contributions… A good laugh is good medicine.}

This is not a religious diary, its not intended to get you to be sympathetic to Mormons from a religious or political perspective.  Pay attention though, you may learn something from this Perry Supporter.

You may or may not have had personal associations with a Mormon in your life… I have, I am one. I was raised in Utah (there’s a lot of Mormons there), I have lived in several states in my 31 years on earth and have had associations with people of all faiths, with a myriad of diverse backgrounds in both religion and politics.  Pushing aside arguments of bias, I have no problems telling others that when a Mormon lives by the tenets of their faith they are good citizens, good neighbors, dedicated servants of Jesus Christ(as our doctrine instructs), and a morally virtuous people.  I also find that to be true of most people who live by the peaceful tenets of their faith.  I make the “peaceful” distinction as throughout history religious zealots of many faiths have utilized religious dogma for their politics  and when politics are exhausted, they have utilized their dogma for justifying unjust warfare, tyranny, and/or terrorism.

I am a conservative.  I believe in Liberty.  I believe that God founded this nation, and through the chosen vessels of our founding fathers, this nation was formed to be a shining city on a hill.  I believe that the Constitution of our nation is an inspired rule of law debated, written, and signed, majorly, by virtuous men of God.  I believe this specific rule of law has the single most unifying and liberating effect for freedom than any other nation organized on earth and under God.  For all my ideology in American Politics, whether popular or unpopular, my personal faith shapes my views, and helps me to make decisions in my life.  Judge or Judge not… I know where I stand by what I know.

You may have heard that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman Jr are also Mormons.  I can confirm, they are, by everything I’ve ever been taught to identify an “Active” Mormon.  Media memes aside… They’re Mormon.  Not all Mormons are aligned with every doctrine, thought, revelation, speculation or assumption… for the same reason that general Christianity has well over 1000 identified sectarian interpretive distinct denominations in the U.S. alone. I assume there are distinctions because everybody is learning and experiencing life at their own pace and in their own way.  It is clear to me though, that both Romney and Huntsman are aligned with the culture and distinguished doctrines of the religion that I myself practice, and yet… If you put me in the room with either of them, I think I would be in vehement disagreement with them on several issues when it comes to politics, which may or may not raise my blood pressure and cause me to say unpleasant things to them.

It’s not an indictment of their personal character, and I don’t condemn them in any degree of a religious nature.  I don’t think of them as “bad Mormons”* because I may disagree with their politics on some issues or with their record or their explanation of their records.  I don’t feel that I need to question their integrity solely because I disagree with their purview, or interpretation of the cause and effect of events, ideas, or policies that they have driven as governors or in the private sector.  Ideas have merit when they are implemented and sustained with a desired result.  I don’t have to question their integrity simply because I disagree with their desired results.  I do reserve the right to criticize the idea, and dissent by more than conscience by my vote, and every degree of influence I may have on the votes of others.

I have been a member of Redstate since January/February 2008.**  I came here as a Romney supporter back then (give me a break, I was 27 at the time, and was naive enough to assume Romney was a conservative, because he said so).  Redstate is a wonderful community.  I know of no other website on the web that provides a respectful conservative atmosphere where the members are able to contribute to the content and the discussion and are able to freely debate without bullying from site moderators (in spite of what the many of the banned may tell you, they were all banned for crossing the line too many times). I enjoy this community and all of its benefits, and I hope to continue my association with it.

If you’re still reading this please allow me to elaborate on the title.

With each GOP debate this year, and really ever since I’ve been on this site, comments have been made about the “Mormonism” factor for Romney, and sometimes Huntsman.  It doesn’t really bother me if their Mormonism(or mine for that matter) bothers you enough for you to not vote for them.  That is YOUR liberty in this great nation.  I would defend anyone’s right to make decisions by the dictates of their own conscience. In my view, we all have to live by the consequences of our decisions, and sometimes we all may have to live by the consequences of others decisions.  Which is why we have a rule of law, and we should always respect it, even if we don’t respect the common fool’s inability to choose the right.

So what is the Giant “Mormon” Elephant in the room for me?

I am calling upon Romney and Huntsman supporters that are whining about whether or not the “Mormon” factor may hurt them, to cease and desist with these types of diatribes.  It is what it is folks… deal with it.  As a Mormon I deal with it (and I’m not a politician), and I do it precisely because I’m a Mormon, and I believe what I believe.

As for those who care to bastardize my religious views with sweeping generalizations, I will continue to call you out for your ignorance.  Seriously, is it so hard to just ask a Mormon to clarify something for you rather than nullify anything relevant you have to say by the nature of your embarrassingly erroneous statements about our beliefs?  Just Sayin’.

*I don’t even think that about Harry Reid, although I think his politics are sorely misguided, and I’m curious if he plans to repent in this life for his role in Obamacare.
**I’m not sure ever since Management had Neil remove the “member since” feature to prevent dogpiling of new members that don’t get the culture of this site, and step into “it” with the wrong comment.

Looking at 2008 IRS report of income taxes:

The top 1% of individual tax payers earned roughly 20% of all reported AGI (adjusted gross income).  Let’s break that down shall we?  The implication is that if you are lucky enough to be in the top 1% of earners of taxable AGI, that means you should be able to afford to pay more taxes to help out the less fortunate right?

There’s one problem… when you take a number like that, you’re hiding behind a percentage.

The top 1% of tax payers is roughly 1.4 million people.  To qualify for the “top 1%” group, you’d have to earn roughly $385,000 AGI annually.

What You Should Know is that the top 1% of income earners paid a total of 38% of all individual federal income tax revenue ($410,898,035,220.00 or $411 Billion of 1.1 Trillion collected in individual federal tax revenues for 2008).

Now if you take in the top 50% of income earners (which includes both the top 1%) They paid 97.3% of all individual federal income tax revenues.  If you take out the 38% of all revenues from the top 1%, the remaining 49% of top 50% earners… pay 59% of all individual federal tax revenues.  And who are these dastardly high earners of the “above average earners”?  Why they’re the folks that earn somewhere between $384,000 and $33,000 (that’s not a typo, that’s $33,000).  If you earn $33,000 you’re part of the “above average pay” crowd.  Maybe we should be taxing you more too right?   And what of that bottom 50% that pays only 2.7% of all individual AGI tax revenues?  They(about 70 million) contribute to 12.75% of all reported taxable AGI (which is $720Billion of the 5+ Trillion of taxable AGI in 2008)

So… say we ignore the Laffer Curve all together and decide that we should tax the top 1%… at 100% of earned of AGI (adjustable gross income).  That would take us (based on 2008 revenues reported) to a total of federal income tax revenues to roughly a WHOPPING $1.85 Trillion. (The hell you say? We gain only a total of $750 Billion? Yeah, that’s what I’m saying).

So here are the real numbers: 20% of all individual taxable income is $1,130,463,019,000.00 according to the 2008 numbers IRS reported income. That’s a large number so I’ll shorten it for you… that’s $1.1 Trillion.  Another way to look at it is there is roughly $5+ Trillion in total reported individual adjusted gross income of all individual tax payers, all tax brackets of the which $5+ Trillion is taxable, 20% of that ($1.1 Trillion) is earned by individuals in the top 1%.

Here’s the problem with our hypothetical situation of taxing the top 1% at 100% of total Adjusted Gross Income, we will barely cover our annual spending deficit that bounces between $1.3 to $1.5 Trillion.

Now if we get back to reality and understand the simple concept behind the Laffer Curve… I ask are you willing to see what happens when the top 1% of earners pay 100% of adjusted gross income…?

If so… maybe I should restate the gain of doing such an inane action: That $750 Billion that we would ‘potentially’ gain… will go to paying roughly .051% of the principal of our total debt $14 Trillion (supposing we’d actually attempt to pay down the debt)…   But rather… what would likely happen is the politicians would see this new $750 Billion in revenue as an opportunity to “spread the wealth”.  They’d trumpet long and loud about a “budget surplus”.

You see… there’s but one way to reduce our debt… which is to do each of the following:  cut entitlement spending, cap non-discretionary spending, and increase revenues.

In order to cap deficit spending its going to require some honest folks to pull up their adult pants, and cut entitlement programs that will force people to stop relying on the government when its not necessary {and that doesn’t include social security or medicare}.

In addition… to grow revenues, you should attempt to grow GDP, not bleed a dry turnip (as suggested above by raising the taxes on the rich).  To do so, We’ll need some attractive business incentives to do more business in the United States, including reducing tax burdens on corporations and the top 1%. Also enacting policies that reduce the cost to do business in America.

Now I know its not the popular thing to do… well at least not with President Obama, because he’d like to point out that CEO’s with lots of money (presumably members of the top 1%) like to fly around in their private jet planes, and therefore should be able to afford more taxes.  May I ask you Mr. President, how many golf games have you played during your administration, and how many of those games required you to fly out of Washington D.C. to the location?

Now if you want to play class warfare with the top 1% of earners… be my guest… but let me just say, I think its really a lame attempt at envy… or a calculated political lie meant to create division among the people, and to galvanize political support.

{Begin sarcasm}Dang those millionaires… how dare they earn so much, they don’t earn enough for us to pay our debts, or even our deficits… but DAMN THEM TO HELL for not giving away all of their income to poor people!!!{End Sarcasm}

Invective is lame… class warfare is lame… and being asinine about facts is lame.  However, being a divisive, arrogant, hypocritical President… that’s just reckless self promotion.

[cross-posted at thestandardcandle.com]

Preface
The horserace for GOP Primary ’12 is on… I have thoroughly enjoyed this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this piece, sometimes for the subject of the material written, but mostly for the predicate of the discussion that is for me fleshing out some interesting viewpoints.  Then there was this piece which was absolutely brilliant and brought a lighter side to the zealotry previously discussed.

I believe that Redstate has been clear about what is an isn’t acceptable by site rules or at least some guidelines for etiquette on covering candidates and primary issues here and here.  I hope this diary meets the standards.

Here are some short thoughts on a very long and tiring horse race for the 2012 primary that have been lingering in my mind as I have read commentary from fellow readers.  I hope you enjoy.

The perfect candidate (Rockstars can be devastatingly disappointing):

I might remind everyone that for those who are ‘waiting for the perfect candidate to get into the race’ is an exercise in vain hope.  There are no perfect candidates. Whether you believe the perfect candidate has already declared, or you’re waiting for your candidate, and you believe they’re perfect, well I hate to disappoint you.  However I would suggest that its likely at some point during the primary you will be disappointed in your zealous loyalty for another human being that is bound to make a misstep in one of the following: in strategy, a gaffe, a failure to espouse the perfect policy in your view, or simply shows a moment of weakness in personal integrity or character while on camera, or does something embarrassingly out of character.

Should this unfortunate moment take place, may I suggest that rather than question your loyalty and throw your arms up in the air in dissatisfaction and disbelief, or lash out at other campaigns or candidates that may have been involved in illuminating that moment… we ought to be patient, and allow our candidate to adjust, explain, or re-focus.  It does our candidate absolutely no good to defend them on ground that is uneven, and potentially rigged with snares.  {yes, I did say ‘our’ as potentially your candidate may represent all of us in the general, so they’re all ‘ours’}. Acknowledging insane or ad hominem attacks filled with hyperbole and disingenuous vitriol with equal or in most cases of lesser quality volleys of defense only legitimizes the original attack in most untrained minds.  One thing I’ve learned is that when someone is berating you over something you’re passionate about, find a way move on… as grandad said ‘you can’t win a pissing match with a skunk”.

Great Charisma does not translate into Great Character (The Integrity Principle):

There are an inordinately few politicians that have not been persuaded to change their view on a position or platform.  Flip flop to me has got to be one of the lamest attacks in politics {its like being labeled with cooties}, in conjunction, the equally lame defense of a ‘flip flop’ label is to say one flipped, but never flopped.

For me a politician that understands their duty is to the people, understands their authority to speak from elected office is from the people.  And though there maybe times where a politician may have to go against the grain of those that elected them, when doing so I hope they seek divine guidance and if not providence in helping to change the hearts of the people to do what is right.

That being said… Charisma will not get them through those very rare and difficult times, character does.  It is the integrity of the individual that can effect great change within their sphere of influence.  Generally if a politician or leader speaks out on unpopular subjects they should know that chicanery is not convincing at all.  However if the cause is just, the words and the thoughts will bear them out in the eyes of the people.  This is bravery and courage that stems from humility, not the usual chest thumping and narcissistic smirking that goes on when a politician believes ‘they have fooled all the people all the time’.

The absence of negatives does not equal a positive.

Candidates cannot be defined by what they are not. Too often we hear a candidate dismissed on this site as “unelectable”, “fringe”, or otherwise. Likewise we see comments that suggest “candidate y does not have the x factor of experience, character, or charisma” or some other form of dismantling dismissal of the campaign’s legitimacy. These things are often said among comments that are meant to explain why one should endorse another candidate that doesn’t have the same problem. We’ve got to stop doing this, it is an inane practice.

Passing the mantle of Reagan requires a field of opportunities rather than a harvest of opportunists.

True Americans fight for honesty and search for the truth.  If we can’t find a candidate with leadership that comes from the moral authority of living justly and judging righteously, then we are doomed as a nation.  If a candidate with the leadership quality of moral authority can’t bring most of us along in the primary let alone the general electorate, then our nation is in need of some serious repentance.

I say let the field be wide and deep.  Let the candidates declare their beliefs rather than attempt to convince us of their own ‘charismatic electability rating’  or the ‘fatal flaws’ of their opponents.  Let the candidates understand that if their beliefs are challenged by the people they may have to burn a few bridges to somewhere {even if it means they lose their ‘shot’} to stand firm for what you believe in.  Standing up for what you believe in and losing the primary isn’t something to be ashamed of, it just means it wasn’t your time.  Either the people were not prepared to embrace the truth, or you didn’t do your homework enough to know the truth of the matter, and how to communicate it.  You see it’s not about understanding what the people think they need.  It’s about knowing what is needed and being able to communicate so effectively that you stir the hearts and minds of good people everywhere to stand with you.

This is why Reagan was so effective.  He did his homework, he knew and understood good sound principles of governance because he was tenacious in understanding what was needed and how to communicate it. The right candidate knows the difference between winning an election vs. winning the heart and soul of the nation.
Conclusion

I believe the horse race will be a long and tiring one. I hope for more civility and less ‘flaming’ in the comments section. It is clear to me that this time is most important in presidential politics. I have fears as much as any other, but I believe we must harness those fears by preparatory action for the general election. It is our time to find the leader that will best represent the ideals of three legged stool of conservatism. I for one am not committing to any candidate until all have declared, and one emerges not as a front runner, but in the spirit of the communicator. I would hope to grant the same privilege for all that we may judge for ourselves where the mantle falls without bitterness, bickering, or belittling those with whom we may disagree.  But by persuasion, and possibly some light-hearted (without levity) humor, we may recognize both the serious and not so serious flaws of these fellow humans that dare put themselves out there for so much scrutiny, in order to lead out in front of these very real political battles over the soul of our nation.