... And For The People?

Cross-Posted From:

HERE I RAISE MY EBENEZER

Yesterday, the Obama administration and the Democrat party, in general, took what many in the press are calling a "victory lap” in celebration of reaching their goal of 7 million Obamacare signups prior to the midnight 3/31/14 deadline. As I saw this unfold, my immediate question was, “Whose victory is being celebrated here?”

Since the “Hollywood elite” are most often found alongside Obama, cheering every claim, I was a bit surprised to hear related cynical remarks come from Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon. However, I thought Fallon offered a pretty realistic perspective when he said,

“That’s right, the White House said that it surpassed its goal for people enrolled in ObamaCare. It’s amazing what you can achieve when you make something mandatory and fine people if they don't do it. And then keep extending the deadline for months. It’s like a Cinderella story. It’s just a beautiful thing. You make everyone do it. Isn’t it great how many people do it? But if you still haven't enrolled, you might have to pay a penalty called the individual shared responsibility payment, which is 1% of your salary. Then Americans said, ‘Man, good thing I don't have a job.’"

 

 

- READ MORE -

Leading Through Derision?

“Last week, the other party, they gave their pitch. … What they offered … was an agenda that was probably a little better suited for the last century, … you might as well have watched it on black-and-white TV, put some rabbit-ears on the convention hall.”

-

President Barack Obama, Addressing an Iowa campaign audience,

regarding the 2012 Republican National Convention

How disappointing is this? Our nation is facing countless overwhelming challenges. Our people are deeply and pretty much equally, divided over the best approach to meeting these challenges. Instead of getting the leadership we look to our President for, to draw our efforts together, we continue to get derisive comments like this … comments that are more likely to come from a Community Organizer, to incite agitation.

Presently, the nearly-equal political halves of the U.S. population are most easily illustrated through the opposing views of the DNC and the RNC, on solving our nation’s current problems. These include our lagging Economy, our incredible Debt, the stance on Abortion, Energy policies, Environmental policies and National Security. To illustrate my point about the counterproductive nature of President Obama’s derisive leadership style, I want to take a look at how that applies to just one of these topics. Hopefully, if I can get you to understand my views on this issue, you’ll see how it applies to the many others.

Tax Relief has been a consistently contentious issue that I think serves well to share my perspective. A very condensed version of the GOP's Platform on this is:

We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income. Our goal is a tax system that is simple, transparent, flatter, and fair. A reformed code should promote simplicity and coherence, savings and innovation, increase American competitiveness, and recognize the burdens on families with children. To that end, we propose to extend the Bush tax cuts-pending reform of the tax code, to keep tax rates from rising.

Of course, the unabridged version of this has many other facets, with several of them being understandably arguable. With that understood, it still seems to me that, in order to draw together the opposing halves on this issue, our nation needs a leader willing to say something like, "Though I don't agree with your stand on this, I can see where you're coming from and I want us to sit down together, to find a solution that works for us all." However, what we continue to get is our President leading the endless drumbeat, stating that all Republicans care about is further enriching "Millionaires and Billionaires." I find this derision to be personally offensive. I'm not a Millionaire or Billionaire. But, thanks to getting the sort of opportunities mentioned in the GOP Platform, I have been able to earn a lifestyle that is well beyond the dreams of a kid (me) who started out as the youngest of three kids, raised by a single-Mom in a time (the Fifties) when that title wasn't even in use yet. Thus, I pretty much resent the implication that I and others like me, are so intellectually and morally inferior that we get up every morning thinking, "What can I do today, to benefit America's Millionaires and Billionaires."

Additionally, I have to say that I find these specific derisive comments from the President to be particularly aggravating as a result of his using "the last century" and "black-and-white TV" as negative connotations. I was born in the middle of the last century and there were some pretty great values that I was given then, foundational values for my life, that I'm deeply disappointed to say have not survived well into this century. For me, a great example can be seen when I tell people, "I'm confident that on the first Sunday after I was brought home from being born at St. Anthony Hospital, my Mom and my Grandma Ray took me to the Second Avenue EUB Church, along with my Brother and Sister. On my first Sunday, I was shown the value of Faith, Family and Community. They remain my life's priorities. Sadly, in this century, fewer and fewer children are even exposed to these great values. And, why disparage black-and-white TV? Are Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech or Neil Armstrong's first step on the surface of the moon any less valuable because they were broadcast utilizing the best medium available at the time - i.e. black-and-white TV?

I guess, if the derisive comment I'm addressing was an exception, it wouldn't be so bad. That certainly isn't the case, though. It continues to be central to the demeanor of the Obama-led Democrat Party. Sad example after sad example can be cited at this week's DNC in Charlotte, NC. Case in point, former Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland, stating that, "If Romney were Santa, he would fire the reindeer and outsource the elves."

As I said at the outset; our nation is facing countless overwhelming challenges and our people are deeply divided over the best approach to meeting these challenges. Another man who called Illinois home when he was elected President, Abraham Lincoln, sized up this situation by looking to wisdom expressed by Jesus Christ, when he said,

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Also as pointed out earlier, our nation is crying out for the leadership we look to our President for, to draw our efforts together. It's obvious, from the behavior addressed here, that Barack Obama either doesn't have the wisdom or the interest (or both) to do this. That, however, remains the sort of leadership we need. For this, I recommend Mitt Romney. A guy who was born in the same year I was, who grew up with Faith, Family and Community as his life's priorities, who watched MLK Jr. and Neil Armstrong on black-and-white TV and celebrated their victories, as we all did.

Obama’s 'Throwing Voters Under The Bus' Tour

Yesterday, a Twitter friend alerted me to the now-well known Gallup Daily, indicating that President Obama’s approval rating had dropped to 39%. My tweet in response said, “When I see 39% still actually say they approve of Obama's presidency, it depresses me.” Since then, I’ve reached an even lower state of despair as I’ve observed the related political activity coming from the Whitehouse, as well as from the Democrat Leadership in both houses of Congress. I know there’s only one way these folks are ever going to “get it”, if they ever do, but their total self-absorption and their complete disconnection with the overriding demeanor of our nation continues to baffle me.

To illustrate this, let’s begin by taking a look at Obama’s current bus tour in the upper Midwest. The Romney campaign has dubbed this the “Magical Misery Tour.” The RNC has nicknamed it the “Obama Debt-End Tour.” Regardless of what it’s called, many have lamented that, “Here we are, over three years after Obama was on his way to being elected President by promising Hope and Change and he’s just now getting out there in an effort to learn what it was that voters were hoping for.” Sadly, the truth is that this episode of “The Campaigner in Chief” has nothing to do with discovering what the American people want. If you listen to the words and watch the actions actually coming from this political outing, it’s obvious that Obama and his team continue to be convinced of their Devine Right, as America’s Royalty … they’re out there to tell voters what they should have been hoping for.

Of course, what the Romney campaign calls the “Magical Misery Tour” is just the latest example of how out of touch the current far-Left version of the Democrat Party is with the reality of the prevailing views of the American public. Leading up to this bus-based excursion, Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has been in the pulpit of the mainstream media, preaching about our country’s “Tea Party Credit Rating Downgrade.” This, in the face of clear evidence that the Tea Party is almost exclusively responsible for the fact that fiscal accountability has been made a top priority for the U.S. Government. And, Axelrod's sermon (echoed by numerous other Liberal Leaders) was the next level of spin development embodied in the endless repetition of the DNC’s "Millionaires and Billionaires" talking point. That continues in spite of the fact that it requires a complete suspension of reality, accepting the belief that Conservatives wake up every morning thinking, "What can I do today that will make life better for America's Millionaires and Billionaires?!"

Though I'm discouraged by the ongoing tyrannical attitude of today's Democrat Party and I don't understand their insistence on continuing in that manner, there is a way for them to "get it." But, as I said earlier, I know there's only one way for that to happen. Stating how that will happen will be my mantra through the General Elections of 2012. Until that long-awaited event, my repeated message to Tax and Spend Big Government Democrats will be:

“You’re misunderstanding the low approvals indicated by polls for the Whitehouse and for Congress. Those polls indicate that voters aren’t happy with those institutions ... YET. Those same approval ratings will be climbing, election by election, as we send more and more of your type home.”

Comments


Millionaires and Billionaires

Submitted by Mike M Boyer on Tue, 2011-08-16 06:10.

The Fabian Socialists are still trying to remold the world closer to their hearts desire http://www.newswithviews.com/Kress/joe137.htm by fanning the flames of class warfare.

Empty Boots, Not Empty Suits, at Iowa GOP Presidential Debate



On one of his recent shows, Conservative Radio Talk Show Host, Hugh Hewitt, was rejoicing in observing how similar today’s political circumstances are to those of 1979, during the Carter Administration. According to Hewitt, he did so because he is certain that the present conditions will lead to a “reinvigorated … American renaissance of power and influence”, as it did under the Reagan Administration, from 1981 to 1989. I’m certainly in favor of seeing that happen so, as a member of the Twitter group that Hewitt calls “The Tribbles”, I was able to indicate my support by tweeting “Preach it, Brother @HughHewitt!” As I did, though, I was thinking, “There’s a key ingredient missing here … Ronald Reagan.”



Our nation was blessed to have had President Reagan but a great leader of his stature, typically, only comes along once in a lifetime. I would welcome seeing someone emerge as an exception to this but; so far, I don’t see anyone who could fill Reagan’s boots. While I would apply this statement to the eight participants in Thursday evening’s GOP Presidential Debate in Iowa, I would also say, as a group, they showed themselves to be anything but empty suits. Unlike we do with the current Democrat Party Leadership (as represented by Obama, Axelrod, Geithner, Kerry, Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, Rangel, Clyburn, etc.), we didn’t hear the relentless drumbeat of party talking points and attacks on voters who want to resurrect our great nation. To those Democrats, I’d say, “You’re misunderstanding the low approvals indicated by polls for the Whitehouse and for Congress. Those polls indicate that voters aren’t happy with those institutions … yet. Election by election, as we send more and more of your type home, approval ratings will be going up.” By contrast, what we did get from the announced Republican Presidential Candidates Thursday night was what Moderator, Bret Baier, asked for – i.e. for talking points to be left behind. Instead, what we heard from this group were pretty unvarnished observations about how to get our country back on a positive footing, along with how their ideas differ from the sitting Administration and their Republican rivals.


One candidate, who I thought did quite well in Thursday evening’s debate, was Newt Gingrich. It was good to see him, finally, sort of step out of the shadows in this campaign. Perhaps his strongest statement was one aimed at putting the press (in the person of Chris Wallace) in its place, when he chastised Wallace for “playing Mickey Mouse games” with “Gotcha questions.” Later, he tried the same gambit with Bret Baier. This latter attempt didn’t strike me as seeming justified and I thought it was a clear indication of why Gingrich doesn’t measure up to Reagan. He is a very intelligent man but he often shows that he doesn’t always use good sense. With that said, I thought he did an excellent job of thoroughly addressing all the questions that came his way. My personal favorite was when he called the Federal Deficit Super Committee the “dumbest idea” he’s heard of and he stated that this is a job for the entirety of Congress.


Of course, the sparring between Congresswoman Michele Bachman and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was entertaining. Frankly, I’d tune in to that if it was a TV series. However, I think they both showed more indications of how they fall short of Reagan, as a standard, rather than showing how they could follow in his footsteps. In Bachman’s case, she seemed more like another career politician with her ongoing chant about making Barack Obama “a one-term President” and with her defensiveness about taking rigid positions that have not produced results. Likewise, I thought Pawlenty came off as a career politician, with the difference being that he seemed mean.


Former Senator Rick Santorum didn’t seem to get as much exposure as some of the other candidates. I thought his complaint about that had some legitimacy. However, I didn’t think he made good use of what visibility he did get. He seemed to use most of the time he got to denigrate his opponents. I never find this breaking of what President Reagan called “The Eleventh Commandment” to be appealing.


As per usual, Congressman Ron Paul seemed to have the most vocal supporters in the audience. And, once again, he and his supporters, to quote the tweet of a fellow-Tribble, “came off as nuts.” I don’t know many Ron Paul supporters well but I do know one supporter who is a fellow Tea Party member and quite a nice lady so, for her sake, I’m very uncomfortable in saying this.


The “front-runner” going in to this debate was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. I think he remained in that position coming out of the debate too. Mostly, I thought he did a good job of dispelling a press “gotcha comment” that, up to now, he has seemed to be in a “Mittness protection program.” He was very clear and thorough in outlining the seven steps he sees as needed for resurrecting the U.S. economy. And, I thought he did a fine job of illustrating how, both in the private sector and the public sector, he has provided the sort of leadership to get these jobs done. Furthermore, he plainly stated that, by contrast, President Obama is “out of his depth” in this regard.


I have to admit that former business CEO, Herman Cain, is a sentimental favorite with me. The positions he’s taken on the issues are well aligned with mine and I like the down-to-earth way he states his positions. However, he has regularly let his openness get him into trouble. And, his “willingness to learn” on foreign relations leaves many wondering if he would suffer from the same “What will he do when the phone rings at 3:00 in the morning?” weakness that Barack Obama has shown.


Finally, there’s former Utah Governor, Jon Huntsman. Out of the candidates participating in Thursday night’s debate, he is the most recent to enter the race. Although I found that several issues he addressed in the debate (securing the border, understanding foreign relations, locally determined education reform, etc.) line up with my views, he did seem like another career politician who is new to the race.


Beyond the GOP Presidential Debate in Iowa, there has been significant interest in the likelihood that Rick Perry will enter the race. As Governor of Texas, I’m betting he owns a pair of boots. Maybe he will prove himself to be somewhat “Reaganesque.” Or, perhaps, one or more other candidates will emerge, who seem to fill that bill. But, as I said before, “so far, I don’t see anyone who could fill Reagan’s boots.” With that said, I did feel that Thursday night’s debate demonstrated another comment I’ve made previously – i.e. There are several Republican Presidential Candidates who are head-and-shoulders above Barack Obama, in terms of being qualified for the job of President. My hope has been, in the process of selecting from this field of candidates, we won’t end up with McCain II. Based on what I saw in the Iowa GOP Presidential Debate, I’m more comfortable with either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, in that regard.

Comments

The battle begins


Submitted by Brittanicus (not verified) on Sat, 2011-08-13 09:45.

0

+-Only one candidate for the White House will stop the bleeding of billions of dollars annually, by illegal foreigners who have taken advantage of the American people? Even Ron Paul in his book, is hesitating on bringing the full power of the law, to halt in its tracks another terrible immigration Reform package; but not so lady Michele Bachmann. Perhaps this is why Rep. Michele Bachmann exempted from being asked questions on illegal immigration? Her stance on this issue is far above the rest who stood behind their dais in Ames, Iowa? Was this leaving Bachman out of this social issue premeditated? Whether this was the case or not, she strands strong as this uncontrolled illegal immigration invader problem has been ignored by administrations for years. Bachmann will not tolerate any form of Amnesty as President. Every Sanctuary City and state that does not comply by cutting of these ordinances will lose federal funding. It’s been said many times before, that American cannot afford to subsidize Mexico, Central America, Europe, Pacific Rim or other nation; its inhabitants impoverished and desperate illegal immigrants anymore? This illogical problem is crippling America’s economy by the massive payouts for families, which have migrated illegally across our sovereign border.



The TEA PARTY has become an immense grassroots movement of tens of millions of one- mind Americans from all racial and religious backgrounds, political parties, no matter what the adverse pundits say? The TEA PARTY members share the focused philosophy of limited government, individual freedoms, personal responsibility, "fair" free markets and above all else returning power to the States and the people. The TEA PARTY is about reforming all political parties and control, so the key principles of our Constitution, once again is the foundation of which this nation stands.



Of course open border disciples, business lobbyist will deny the obvious, that this illegal incursion is drowning us in debt—with no end in sight. (FAIR) American Federation of Immigration Reform that of 2009, reported that overall costs to subsidize the illegal alien household was calculated through, federal, State, County and Municipal sources that it was a $113 Billion dollar problem. Federation for American Immigration Reform issued a report in which they estimate the total annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is estimated to be $113 billion combined. The states are bearing the burden of the costs; while the government share is nearly $29 billion, it escalates to $84.2 billion at the state and local level. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The state-by-state breakdown begins on page 4 of this report at: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921

Education for the children of illegal migrants and immigrants constitutes the sole largest outlay to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Virtually all of those expenses are absorbed by state and local governments. At the federal level, only about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs is allied with the illegal immigration occupation and recouped through taxes collected from illegal nationals. Nearly all illegal aliens do not pay income taxes; only those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal immigrants when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resultant in payments from the U.S. Treasury. Please note this is not a static expenditure, but these dollars amounts are raising all the time.



Ask yourself, why the Grand Canyon State of Arizona had not choice, but to clamp down against the massive dollar amounts spent to appease illegal alien homesteads How can a small South Western state that is mostly desert, afford to pay out $2 Billion dollars annually for foreigners? Then again-- how can Leftist legislators in Sacramento, California, justify taking taxpayer’s money and giving it to illegal aliens when these persons truly don't exist, other than in ICE enforcement records or Homeland Security? HAS ANY READER THOUGHT OF CHECKING THEIR STATES PAYOUT TO FOREIGN NATIONALS? Although they come here through the magnet of jobs, welfare and each year bring their children. The estimates of 300.000 babies enter via a broken, intermittent border fence, that can no-way be fully enforced without the deployment of troops. Instant citizen for babies is above most payments, is an incredulous cost forced on taxpayers by Liberal judges legislating from their gavel.



Because entering America without papers is not a—FELONY—it is essentially a giant hole in the wall, which imports not only millions of illegal aliens, but a massive population of criminals; bringing death, mayhem and ID theft on the unsuspecting citizens and residents. As I said in my commentary yesterday, the only way to sever the incentive of jobs (which I never thought I would admit) is issuing every citizen and legal resident a government ID CARD. This could be used to get employed US workers. (8 million illegal aliens have stolen jobs from mostly low income Americans according to reputable sources.) The same official ID card could be presented for voting; instead of the mess we have now, with convicted felons, deceased and illegal aliens, fraudulently using the election process to alter an elections direction.



You would also use this federal ID CARD to be checked against other data bases, official birth records to see if you have the right to be issued a driver’s license, vehicle insurance, welfare or other Public entitlements. I shouldn't gloat over the welfare payouts in California, but it is a self inflicted wound caused by the Liberals in the capitol. California, the Godfather of Sanctuary State has a $19 Billion dollar budget gap, with a staggering cost of $21 Billion $ according to the National Conference of State Legislators in 2009. We must wonder how the welfare costs have escalated in two years in the once Golden State?



MY EARLIER BLOGS: http://brittanicus-enoughisenough.blogspot.com/

No Copyright. Distribute Freely.



From Rab L Rouser via email


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sun, 2011-08-14 14:25.

0

+-I was going to compliment you an a nice article and point out that, as Michael Reagan points out in his book ‘The New Reagan Revolution’ (on pages 66-67) ;



“Gerald Ford was a flawed candidate, as was John McCain. But I’ll let you in on a secret: We’re not going to find a perfect candidate. Ronald Reagan was not perfect. He was not 100% pure. He was a great man, but he had his flaws. Despite all that he accomplished Ronald Reagan couldn’t win the GOP nomination today.



If Ronald Reagan were running for president today, where would the opposition come from? From the left? No, from the right! Ronald Reagan would not be considered ideologically pure enough to be the standard-bearer of the party.



Conservatives revere Ronald Reagan as the patron saing ot the GOP– and rightly so. But if conservatives in 1980 had applied the same standards to Ronald Reagan that they apply to Joyhn McCain, we might never have had the economic recovery of the 1980′s of the fall of the Berlin Wall.



Ronald Reagan caaomplished what he did because he saw the big picture. He waved a bnner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pale pastel shades. He wasn’t a perfect man, but he was a good man–



And a great leader.



I didn’t bother to watch the debate. I have learned that words used at these events are just lies intended to hornswaggle voters into lending their support toward the candidate most to their liking.



I sit back and wait for my intelligent friends to post on trustworty publications such as Red State and then benefit from their sage judgement.



Thank you for your tireless devotion to liberty my friend.



Reaganism


Submitted by Jon R (not verified) on Sun, 2011-08-14 20:04.

0

+-If a political candidate has to compare himself to Reagan; Chances are he is not anything like Reagan. It annoys me to know end to hear Presidential candidates say things like, I am Reagan Republican or What would Reagan do?



You know what candidate? Reagan was a leader. Reagan didn't compare himself to other people. Reagan saw himself as a leader of a movement. Be that person, don't say your like that person.



From @strongthought via Twitter


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:47.

0

+-If we had ‘internet scrutiny’ in 1979 we would be critical of Reagan too. There is a Reagan in that pack of candidates. There is.



From @tamij via Twitter


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:50.

0

+-Nice Gary!



From Michael Beck via email


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:52.

0

+-Great analysis big Gary. I think correct analysis. This next election, Obama will be in over his head in debating the GOP candidate, just like he is in over his head in running the country. Ron Paul is a total idiot. To think that Iran with a nuclear weapon poses no threat is kooksville.



From Joel Turvey via email


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:54.

0

+-Gary,

I enjoyed your post very much. You put your finger on what is missing in the Republican presidential primary contest. Having said that, I feel hopeful after watching the last 2 debates. Any one of these candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) would be better than President Obama. All seem committed to encouraging free enterprise and reversing Obama’s policies, especially Obamacare. They are articulate and forceful. And who knows, like @strongthought observed, maybe a Reagan will eventually emerge from this field, especially with the addition of Rick Perry.

My sentimental favorite is Michele Bachmann. She may seem rigid, but she was uncompromising in opposition to raising the debt ceiling, and she has fought against the administration’s positions, despite Pawlenty’s petty comments. She walks the walk on the pro-life issue.

Keep up your good work.



From a fellow Northwest conservative,

Joel Turvey (@joelmt)



From team_Excalibur via email


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 06:03.

0

+-I have to admit that the “political machine” of either party is not producing a believable candidate I would strongly back and vote for in 2012. Every “hard-line party”, rich politician currently in Congress thinks that the existing two-party system with support from dependent, high-density urban area voters will either save them in the coming elections or replace them with a party clone that holds the “status quo”. It’s ironic that many of the nation’s young voters and “poor” vote for Congressional candidates that are from a very rich and arrogant sector of our society. Why should anyone of the right stuff that we need to replace the Congress or the President in office need to pay millions to promote themselves as a viable candidate and participate as a candidate in a preliminary campaign event??? The whole system is broken! We need real leadership, not accusations and vague political promises! Obamacare is not about medical care improvement, it’s about expanded federal government control of the middle class populous and weakening of the Constitutional rights of every American.



The Democrats are primarily funded by big business interests (those same corporations who don’t pay their fair share of taxes and outsource our critical balance of trade jobs to our national debt “lenders”) and fully supported by new white-collar state government unions in almost all states with very large cities on both coasts. We are headed for a direct political conflict between suburban folks with angered patriotic seniors who paid their “entitlement” taxes the Democrats established over the last 60+ years and progressive liberal socialists and communists headquartered in all of America’s big cities. A dictator will emerge (if he hasn’t already been voted in by the “sheeple” who depend on the current course of federal government-initiated entitlement programs and taxation.) We are under economic attack and still giving borrowed money away to other counties in the world for favors. Meanwhile, Congress just keeps rearranging the deck chairs on the American, National Debt-ridden Titanic…

President Obama: To Employ More Veterans, Get Big Government Out of Their Way!

 

In a speech Friday, at the Washington Navy Yard, President Obama overviewed his administration’s new initiative meant to help those serving in the military find employment following their service. The program announced was in response to a report regarding the unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans. Although the unemployment rate for all veterans stands at 8.6 % (lower than the nation’s overall unemployment rate of 9.1 %), the current unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans is 12.4 %. That is an increase over the 11.8 % rate reported for this group a year ago.

As could be expected, with the Navy Yard as a backdrop and surrounded by military personnel, a speech on this topic was well received. Regardless of the setting and the audience, I see this as a topic deserving of positive interest from us all. When our heroes, who offer themselves for military service on our behalf, return from that service to civilian life, I want to see them welcomed on a level playing field and given a head start I believe they’ve earned. Obviously, based on the unemployment rates being reported, our Iraq and Afghanistan-era heroes are experiencing a welcome that is opposite of what I’d like for them to be getting.

President Obama’s plan here consists of two key elements: (1) He is asking Congress to legislate new tax breaks intended to encourage employers to give a hiring edge to veterans. (2) He has ordered the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments to form a new task force, to develop a plan aimed at helping veterans secure post-service employment.

Although I commend the President for having his heart in the right place on this, I don’t think his is the right solution. It’s amazing to me that, even in the face of the abundantly obvious abject failure we’re experiencing with his dogma, President Obama remains an undying big government ideologue. Much as was the case with this approach during the Carter administration, Obama and his fellow-zealots have formulated a scheme for tinkering with the symptoms of this matter rather than diagnosing its cause and prescribing corrective treatment.

In considering this problem and its likely source, I couldn’t help but notice its similarities to another dilemma I wrote about not long ago, in an article entitled Meeting the Challenge of Senior Underemployment – One of Our Greatest Socioeconomic Opportunities. This writing addresses the difficulty being faced by another group of veterans … Seniors who are veterans of business.

When I wrote that article, the U.S. unemployment rate was 9.3%. At that time, the unemployment rate for Seniors (people aged 55 and over) was 6.7%. Initially, that made it sound like older workers were doing better than the general population. However, since the recession began in December of 2007, the unemployment rate for Seniors had increased by a factor of 2.09, while unemployment in the general population increased by a factor of 1.86. Furthermore, the average duration of unemployment for Seniors was 53.6 weeks (more than one year) versus 39.4 weeks for the younger unemployed.

In addition to the similarities between these two groups of veterans, with unemployment, they share corresponding experiences with underemployment. I believe related accounts of this tell us as much as, if not more than, unemployment tells us about the underlying cause of the overall problem here and its likely source.

The following are a few anecdotes, to exemplify this predicament for our Iraq and Afghanistan-era military veterans:

“After almost two years in New York looking for work in law enforcement, Iraq veteran Christopher Kurz just moved back in with his parents in Arizona. His military police work in Iraq and aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier didn't seem to translate into a job.”

“Staff Sgt. Meghan Meade, 27, of East Moriches, N.Y., said her lack of a bachelor's degree also seems to have kept her from getting a full-time job, even doing administrative work. A member of the New York Air National Guard, she said she's spent five years on active duty and did a tour in Iraq. She has an associate's degree, but she's reluctant to go back to school because she's not sure exactly what to study. She's waiting tables and doing temporary clerical work.”

“Hugh Conlon, from Augusta, Georgia, who served in the Army for 20 years as a Sergeant First Class. He served three combat tours as a medic, most recently as a Senior Medical non-commissioned officer for an Iraqi National Police Brigade in Iraq. Despite his extensive experience as a medic in combat zones, Hugh was unable to find a job in the medical field when he left the Army. He was turned down for positions ranging from driving an ambulance to admitting patients to the hospital.”

Although this group of veterans may not hear these things directly from prospective employers, typical reasons that come back to them about why they’ve been passed over include: The prospective employers’ failure to connect the responsibilities of their military duty to civilian job requirements, concerns that veterans might have mental health issues and with Guard and Reserve troops, worry that they will deploy again.

To illustrate the corresponding quandary with the other group, Seniors who are veterans of business, here are a few stories out of the many like this that I’m personally aquainted with:

“A President and CEO of a telecom company. For nearly two years he was “between jobs” but got one six-month consulting gig. Now he is employed as a Senior Operations Manger with a nonprofit.”

“A VP of Worldwide Sales for a software developer. The five years since she left that position have held a VP-level job with a marketing research firm, a VP-level job with a nonprofit, a couple of advisory/consulting gigs and significant periods ‘between jobs’.”

“A CFO-level person who had been working abroad. He moved back home to be with an ailing parent who has, since, passed away. During over three years ‘back home’, he managed to get only two months of consulting work. He has returned to a financial role, working abroad, for a U.S. Government agency.”

“A President of an apparel manufacturer. After two years of unemployment he accepted a position as VP of Operations for a heavy equipment dealer. That job lasted 1 ½ years. He has returned to consulting, as he looks for his next opportunity.”

Here, again, this group doesn’t necessarily get direct feedback from prospective employers about why they have been passed over but the rationale seems to include: The hiring company viewing the candidates age as a negative rather than valuing the experience that comes with the age, concerns that these veterans may lack energy/enthusiasm and apprehension that they may just be looking for a place to ‘coast’ to their imminent retirement.”

So, what does all this indicate? Does it mean that I think Seniors should be getting the same sort of government supported jobs program that the President is proposing for our Iraq and Afghanistan-era military veterans? Well, as temptingly self-serving as it would be for me to say “Yes”, I have to say “No”. Does it mean that I’m opposed to seeing our Iraq and Afghanistan-era military veterans get the help the President is proposing? No. I agree with Hugh Conlon when he says, “That’s no way for America to support the troops”, regarding the unemployment/underemployment experience we’re presently giving Vets like him. Do I think that what the President is proposing is more of a band-aid than corrective surgery? Yes!

If you just listen to what both sets of veterans are being told about why they’re being passed over for employment, you hear evidence of the need for a paradigm shift, not tinkering. Whether it’s failure to connect the responsibilities of their military duty to civilian job requirements, concerns that veterans might have mental health issues and worry that they will deploy again (for military veterans) or it’s viewing the candidates age as a negative rather than valuing the experience that comes with the age, concerns that these folks may lack energy/enthusiasm and apprehension that they may just be looking for a place to ‘coast’ to their imminent retirement (for business veterans); these are the results of businesses looking for reasons not to hire. This is what you find when the business environment has been stifled by ever-increasing regulation and taxation accompanied by government spending exceeding the wildest imaginations. On the other hand, when these factors are reversed, business thrives and you find employers looking for reasons to hire people - i.e. They look for ways to match up the skills a military veteran gains from their service or the experience a business veteran aquires from their career with fitting jobs that need doing in a booming economy. This is the paradigm shift that is called for.

In closing, I want to emphasize that accomplishing this paradigm shift for the two groups of veterans I’ve mentioned here is critical to the socioeconomic future of our nation. To a great degree, today’s Seniors are made up of Baby Boomers. This generation was lavished, more than any other, with education. Moreover, they were raised by the GI Generation, who instilled them with a great work ethic. That meant, not only did they get a great education, they actually went out and tried to accomplish everything they could with that resource and in the process, grew the resource by honing it with experience to create what I call “A Great Wealth of Wisdom.” Sadly, this invaluable resource is going to die with the Baby Boom generation, if we don’t put them to work, ideally in mentoring roles with the best of our younger generations. What better candidates for this latter group than our Iraq and Afghanistan-era heroes? By combining and unleashing these immediately available resources, we can reinvent the socioeconomic environment of a true Super Power. But, this won’t result from tinkering. It will require systemic corrective action.

Comments
 
Very good, well reasoned


Submitted by Big Mike (not verified) on Sun, 2011-08-07 11:19.

-1

+-Very good, well reasoned article, Gary. Thanks!

Your Comment


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-08 07:59.

-1

+-Thanks, Big Mike!

Via Facebook


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sun, 2011-08-07 12:54.

-1

+-Larry J. Smith Good thing. We owe them jobs for their contributions and dedication.

Your Comment


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-08 08:02.

-1

+-I fully agree, Larry.

Much Heat, Little Light

The result of the end of "the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America"? ... Politics as usual!

Monday evening, by a vote of 269-161, the U.S. Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 … a/k/a the bipartisan agreement to address the debt crisis. According to an AP report on this, “A final Senate sign-off for the measure is virtually assured on Tuesday” and “If the bill were presented to the president, he would sign it.”

Sunday night, President Obama and congressional leaders announced this agreement that, according to another AP article, is a "dramatic resolution" that will "(lift) a cloud that had threatened the still-fragile economic recovery." In that same article, the President is quoted as saying, "(The deal) will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America". One can only hope that he was looking in the mirror as he made that statement but I have to admit that the President hit the nail on the head about this being a "crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America". Sadly, it appears that, after putting the American public through this stressful time, our elected federal officials have only accomplished a continuation of "politics as usual". And, in my mind, it's just the sort of political outcome that's in Barack Obama's "wheelhouse" - i.e. Continuing to dangle "Hope" before the nation's people without delivering much in actual "Change".

What This Deal is Aimed to Deliver

Reportedly, this agreement is meant to cut federal spending by $2.2 trillion over the coming decade. Based on the 2011 Federal Budget, the U.S. government plans to spend $38.2 trillion over the next 10 years. While cutting that by $2.2 trillion doesn't seem very significant, that is this deal's overall "best case" scenario. Getting to the $2.2 trillion level requires the most optimistic outcome of sure-to-be highly contentious follow up work by a "super-committee" of legislators. However, the first phase of this proposed legislation will generate around $900 billion in spending cuts over the next decade, while allowing an immediate $900 billion increase in the government's ability to incur debt. So, the "best case" scenario for this deal's first phase actually means Zero change initially, followed by continuing and ever increasing deficit spending. And, the conservative objective to get Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment, which seemed within easy reach, has been abandoned.

Furthermore, the federal government's ability to borrow more money will now be authorized beyond the 2012 elections. This is being positioned as a relief to the American public, in not having to continue to live under the "cloud" of this "debt crisis", for now, but its true benefit is solely to President Obama, for his reelection aspirations.

Finally, it's being touted that Republicans have achieved a major goal in this agreement through avoiding tax increases. In fact, though, increased tax recommendations are likely to come from the follow up work of the bipartisan "super-committee".

Winners and Losers

As noted above, this "dramatic resolution" claims to result in a number of "Winners". You can, easily, judge those for yourself. However, some have pointed to the Tea Party, as a "Loser" in this deal and I want to address that.

As indicated by the title of this article, I see this "crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America" as having produced "Much Heat" and "Little Light". Of course, I was hoping for much more in a real debt reduction plan. And, certainly, I'm deeply disappointed to see the loss of momentum towards a balanced budget amendment. However, the general focus of our federal lawmakers has been shifted from continuing ever-increasing spending to striving to learn to live within our means. That is an accomplishment that the Tea Party can proudly take credit for.

Courageously Achieving More

Although the above mentioned shift in the general focus of our federal lawmakers is in line with what voters were looking for in electing a new Congress last Fall, I had hoped those newly focused legislators would not accept this accomplishment as being enough. For many years now, our nation has been sinking in a morass of "politics as usual". The desire to get out of that quagmire was the driving force that brought the sitting Congress into power. More than anything else, the "dramatic resolution"' announced by President Obama and congressional leaders Sunday night, is "politics as usual". Since that is diametrically opposite of the primary impetus that brought these newly focused lawmakers into office, I was disappointed to see many of them (including Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, who represents the congressional district where I live) support this deal.

Of course, I recognize that what I had hoped for is something that, as folks would say where I was raised in the Midwest, "says easy and does hard". Standing your ground when you’re being hit from all sides on the “debt crisis” with issues like its “cloud” continuing to hang over the American people, its threat to our economy, necessary levels of spending, appropriate levels of debt, its potential impact on Obama’s reelection, its prospective bearing on your own reelection, legitimate needs for taxes/revenues, its impact on job growth, the possibility of passing a balanced budget amendment, countless political pressures, etc.; makes this far from easy. In fact, just the opposite is true; it requires extremely hard work and great courage.

With that said, let me go on to say I understand that the courage required for me to express my views, hiding behind my keyboard, is nothing compared to what I'm asking of those legislators who came into office along with the momentum of the Tea Party. And though I’m disappointed with their not continuing to stand their ground to accomplish even more, that doesn’t mean I’m giving up on them. To the contrary, I’m very proud of the tremendously difficult work they have done and the immense courage they have displayed in doing it. I just want remind them that this is what we were looking for when we voted for them. And, I want to encourage them that the greater level of accomplishment I’d hoped for is, in fact, achievable. For me, the greatest indication of that came from Barack Obama, the antagonist in this episode of “politics as usual”, when he told Eric Cantor, “Don’t call my bluff.” To me, that clearly said, he was bluffing and that his bluff could have been called.

Next time, stand your ground and don’t miss a similar opportunity.

Comments

on Bluffing and Ideologues


Submitted by Mike Frome (not verified) on Tue, 2011-08-02 07:28.

0

+-Hi Gary, I don't believe the president was bluffing, he was merely misusing the language (again). What he meant was "Don't try me because I'm not bluffing". In my view this is because he is an ideologue; a true believer in his closely held (although repeatedly disproved) social and economic theories.



I believe that in his eyes, a failure in congress to act would have been acceptable...he would have done as the extreme progressive wing of his party has been demanding. He would have unilaterally taken the power to set the debt ceiling unto the executive branch, thereby making a complete mockery of congressional budgetary authority for the indefinite future.



To the masses, I believe he would have been able to justify this by making the case "he was the only adult in DC" and "it was in the urgent best interest of the country to act", and I believe that case would have been sufficient for many.



As far as these "cuts" are concerned, a "cut" of a trillion or two into a notional $9T of increases over a decade is another mortal insult to the English language, just on a semantics basis. Never mind the fact that none of those cuts, put off into the indefinite future, are going to happen until they are *again* forced. If our leadership couldn't do anything meaningful now, they are going to be worse than useless in the coming monetary crisis.



Cheers,

Mike

Fool we once, then fool me again


Submitted by Lynn Costello (not verified) on Tue, 2011-08-02 14:32.

0

+-As we've seen from watching the President and democrats today, it is back to business as usual with "investments" in more government and of course an effort to make those millionaires, billionaires and owners of corporate jets pay their fair share. So much for compromise. We wake up realizing once again, we are suckers!

Millionaires & Billionaires


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2011-08-02 19:03.

0

+-Don't you just love knowing that, with the Liberals never-ending repitition of this talking point, there are actually many out there who must think that Conservatives get up every day asking themselves, "What can I do today to make life better for America's Millionaires & Billionaires?!"

Avoiding McCain II

If, like me, you’re praying for the 2012 Presidential Election to result in Barack Obama being a One-Term President, the good news is that the most recent Gallup Poll shows that the "Republican Candidate" (generic) leads Obama 47% to 39%. The bad news is that when you fill in “generic” with any name from the current field of candidates, polls indicate that Obama holds the lead over (or, at least, is tied with) each of these candidates.


Thankfully, for now, most Republicans seem to be trying to cleave to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment … “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” … so their relentless knit-picking of each candidate who comes along seems to have waned. Perhaps that is due to the fact that they recognize what has even been acknowledged by one writer at the Huffington Post – i.e. “The least qualified Republican candidate, stands head and shoulders above the qualificat­ions of the incompeten­t guy we now have in the White House.” Just the same, an aire of unease seems to remain amongst the GOP faithful. I believe the source of this anxiety is what I call “The Fear of McCain II.”

“McCain II” is my metaphor for a repeat of what happened with the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination. Though I will always honor John McCain as a true American hero, I don’t believe he was the best candidate the GOP could have put forward as their 2008 Presidential Nominee. But, like many, I voted for McCain in the General Election, not because he was “my guy” but because he was my preference over Obama.

In order to deal with the angst of loyal Republicans due to the possibility of “McCain II”, it only makes sense to develop a strategy to avoid that. Logically, the first step in this development process is to consider how “McCain I” happened. My view is that, in general, this was the result of the GOP doing “business as usual”, from the time candidates started emeging up through the 2008 RNC in St.Paul, MN. By contrast, the Democrat Party and the Obama Campaign recognized that the 2008 political landscape called for anything but “business as usual”. Their “audacious” approach handed the GOP a huge defeat in that year. That, of course, was discouraging for the GOP faithful. What’s more discouraging is that, so far, the Republican Party seems to be taking the same “business as usual” approach in the current political season. For evidence of this, you only need to look as far as the “top candidate” in the current field of Republican presidential hopefuls.

Mitt Romney is, presently, the clear leader amongst the “top candidates.” According to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll, “Romney also runs ahead of the pack on three crucial attributes: leadership, experience and, perhaps most important, who can beat the president next year.” However, a related report in the Washington Post goes on to say, “Romney’s support is tepid, particularly among the party’s most energized constituency — the strong supporters of the tea party movement.” My belief is that the primary reason that “Romney’s support is tepid” is a fear of “McCain II.” Frankly, I would vote for Romney for President in the 2012 General Election, but it would only be because he would be my preference over Obama, not because he’s “my guy.” Obviously, for me, having this happen would add up to “McCain II.” Fortunately, though Romney is the current “front runner”, there are several other Republican “top candidates” to consider.

Though unannounced, Sarah Palin remains a “top candidate.” The Washington Post report I mentioned also provides a good thumbnail sketch on the outlook for her prospective candidacy. It notes:

“Sarah Palin’s lingering power to shake up the race if she decides to run.” … “the hold that Palin still has on segments of the party faithful despite some long-standing liabilities and deep skepticism among many voters about her qualifications.” … “Palin tops the list as the most empathetic figure. She runs almost even with Romney on the question of who best reflects the party’s core values and on who is most compatible with people on the issues.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry has also been expressing a growing interest in a possible candidacy. Here again, the Washington Post article I mentioned offers a good synopsis of this “top candidate”:

“As the longtime governor of a big state that has produced more jobs than any other state in the country, Perry is seen by some Republicans as a potentially serious threat to Romney. But he is far from a dominant figure in the assessment of rank-and-file Republicans. He attracts the support of 8 percent, with or without Palin in the race, and he is in single digits on all six attributes as well.”

And, as cited earlier, there are numerous other Republican candidates, the least of whom, in the words of the Huffington Post author, have credentials that are “head and shoulders above the qualificat­ions of the incompeten­t guy we now have in the White House.” Although I’m not going to attempt to provide a summary for the candidacy status of each of these individuals, there is another “top candidate” I want to draw attention to in this regard. It’s the candidate mentioned at the outset of this article … the "Republican Candidate" (generic) who, according to the recent Gallup Poll, leads Obama 47% to 39%. Of course, successful campaigning on the part of one of the candidates I’ve named up to now could lead to that person inheriting the poll-leadership of the “generic candidate”. Mostly, though, the present poll-leadership of the “generic candidate” implies that party faithful are hoping there are one or more superior candidates out there who, for now, have chosen not to join in the race.

So, how does this all fit together and what does it tell us about how to avoid “McCain II?” My belief is that all this clearly indicates the necessity for the Republican Party to proactively get behind a candidate now, instead of taking a “business as usual” approach.” One way of doing this is for the party, as an example, to identify the reasons why “Romney’s support is tepid” and if this is a result of perceptions that can honestly be corrected, to work with the candidate to correct them and give him the party’s full support. Of course, this approach could also be applied to Palin’s “long-standing liabilities and deep skepticism among many voters about her qualifications” and with the view of Perry as being “far from a dominant figure in the assessment of rank-and-file Republicans”. If the GOP was to take this approach with all of it’s “top candidates”, an added benefit could be encouraging some of those superior candidates, who have chosen not to be in the race at present, to get in.

I recognize that the idea of the RNC selecting a candidate for the party’s full support at this stage of the game is very naïve and not very practical. But it is just that … an idea ... a suggestion for something different and better than “business as usual.” Without a different and better approach, we’re almost certain to get “McCain II.” So, Republican National Committee, you folks are the professionals to whom we’ve entrusted our party. If you don’t like this idea, please tell us what you have in mind that’s different and better. I don’t care how dissimilar what you have in mind is from the idea I’ve presented. All I care about is that it’s not “business as usual” and please, that it doesn’t give us “McCain II.”


Comments

From Mark Mahan via Facebook


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Fri, 2011-07-22 19:27.

0

+-I'm with you Gary- we need a good, strong Republican candidate to run. Not because we need a Republican in office, but because we need an excellent choice. I'm hoping that the GOP can find the right person.

From funwithknives


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Fri, 2011-07-22 19:44.

0

+-is apparent here . At least to this Naif. Leave this decision to Fall Convention, 2012 and little time remains for preparations. BHO has the advantage if we allow it.Example: Point/counter-point is coming and Unification is only logical, for concentration of every resource.

“Time ,Waits for NoOne,and It Won’t, Wait for Me…”(or WE)

McCain II


Submitted by Mike Frome (not verified) on Mon, 2011-07-25 07:59.

0

+-Gary, I largely agree with what you've written here. I've referred to it as "pulling a Dino" - a GOP candidate put forth using the "politics as usual" paradigm...and there are far too many first-time conservative activists who view the GOP very skeptically on the national level especially, vis-a-vis fiscal policy.



think that some of the names with lesser recognition can truly shine on their own merit, if they are not placed in the shade of the Name Brand by the party.



I also personally know several people who have expressed that they will refuse to vote if the choice presented by the system is, in their perception, one branch of "the Left" vs. another. I can empathize with that view, although I believe the stakes are far too high.

A Prayer In Baltimore

Although I didn't vote for Barack Obama, I do want his presidency to be successful. However, as the public celebratory events started on the weekend prior to Obama's inauguration, I have to admit that I wasn't drawn to join in the celebration. In fact, I found myself going into sort of an "auto-tune-out" mode. I suspect I'm not alone in this. However, I really do want to be supportive of the Obama administration where I can and I want to encourage others to do likewise so, while my reaction is probably pretty natural, I want to be on guard about it.

I guess this is just one of those situations that, growing up in Indiana, we would define as, "Says Easy but Does Hard." Thankfully, something broke through my "auto-tune-out" that I'm finding to be helpful on the "Does" part. It took place on the Saturday prior to the inauguration, as the Obama Train, making it's way to Washington, D.C., made a stop in Baltimore. Prior to Obama's introduction, to speak at Baltimore's War Memorial Plaza, Dr. Walter Scott Thomas, of Baltimore's New Psalmist Baptist Church, strode to the podium, to open the ceremony in prayer. I've only been able to find one link for a video of Dr. Thomas' prayer and its incomplete, but here are the highlights that caught my attention:

• Dr. Thomas started by asking everyone to join hands.
• He expressed his thanks to God for things we're all blessed with, as Americans.
• He asked for God's blessing of, protection of and guidance of the incoming President.
• He closed, "In the name of Your Son and our Savior."

"Faith & Family are my priorities." That's the statement I use, in beginning my Twitter Profile. Knowing that, offers understanding of why that prayer managed to break through my "auto-tune-out". Since my Twitter Profile goes on to describe me as "A Bleeding-Heart Conservative", that should, likewise, help provide understanding that I still wasn't drawn to join in the celebration. But it did help me gain perspective on how I can actually go about being "supportive of the Obama administration where I can". Surely, Obama had a hand in selecting Dr. Thomas to offer this opening-prayer. Just as there are many issues where I don't support Barack Obama, I might find that to be true of Dr. Thomas. But I support what Dr. Thomas lifted up in prayer and I support Barack Obama, in choosing Thomas for that role. I see this much the same as I did Obama's invitation to Pastor Rick Warren, to participate in the inauguration. That invitation and its acceptance, was criticized both from the Left and from the Right. Though I'm not a Rick Warren fan, per se, we're in fundamental agreement on doctrine so, I'm pleased to know that this will be a part of the inaugural ... especially considering the "Wright" choice that Obama might have made.

Though I do want to be "supportive of the Obama administration where I can" I'm not expecting to be found out in the public square in the near future singing Kumbaya with those who did vote for Obama. There are many issues where I'm in disagreement with our incoming President. None is more significant than our differences on abortion. When and if the Obama administration becomes proactive with their pro-abortion attitude, you can look for me to oppose that as strenuously as I know how. But, as a Conservative, I don't think we are doing our best for those who share our views or for our country, if opposition is all we put forward. I agree with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham when he speaks against "playing Gotcha Politics" (though I don't think challenging the Geithner appointment necessarily falls into that category).

My hope with this, in general, is much the same as what I've stated in earlier posts - e.g., America's 21st Century Civil War. In that posting, I stated that, "Unfortunately, our nation has drifted away from ... a quality that made us great in the first place. Some think of it as Yankee ingenuity. I say its a greater strength that comes from the synergy of the best of our differing ideas." That's a perspective I want to maintain. Hearing Dr. Thomas' Prayer in Baltimore has helped me to do that. Whether or not you share my views, I recommend taking time to check out the video link I've highlighted above and then give some added thought to how you, as an individual, can add to that "greater strength".

Character v Diversity

An African-American from Generation X, two White Guys from the Silent Generation and a woman from Generation X. Arguably, the greatest diversity the U.S. has ever seen in its leading general election candidates for the Presidency. I think that’s a healthy thing.

The progress our nation has made on the topic of diversity is, surely, the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. But, he taught us not to judge people based on observable differences – e.g. the color of skin (or the age of skin or the shape of skin). Rather, his instruction was to base judgment on content of character.

Character, then and not diversity seems to be the important consideration in determining the best candidate for President. But, what is character? J.C. Watts Jr., one of my favorite ex-politicians (I do wish he would get back in the game) says, “Character is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking.” I think that makes a great character “yardstick”. So, lets consider the things that first come to mind about these candidates that we’ve come to learn they did “… when nobody (was) looking.”

With Obama, I immediately think of the nearly 20 years he sat under the teaching of Jeremiah Wright. I find that deeply troubling.

In Joe Biden’s case, I’m mindful of the plagiarism he admitted to in school and that was obvious in his 1988 Presidential Campaign. He’s proven that you can’t take him at his word.

A year ago, “… when nobody (was) looking”, Senator John McCain was traveling coach-class and carrying his own bags because he was willing to stand up for our nation to win, even if it cost him his election. I find it very hard not to stand up for a guy who is willing to stand up for me like that.

Recently, Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin learned that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is pregnant. Quietly, giving being Mom priority over being a politician, Governor Palin provided her daughter the love and support she needed to begin dealing with the young woman’s challenging circumstances. Although the press tried to eviscerate her for it, it made me proud to know that someone with this sort of character is willing to serve us, as a nation.

Are there other matters to consider along these lines that would reflect more positively on Obama and Biden and more negatively on McCain and Palin? Perhaps. My recommendation is that we all give these matters our full consideration, in this same light and right away. November 4th is coming fast and we all need to be doing our best to determine the best candidates based on the Substance of their character and not the Style of their presentation.

“CHANGE! NOW! PLEASE?!?!?!?”

Sound familiar? Before you jump to conclusion about the quotation … this is what a gnat might say, finding itself nearing windshield impact. Yes, the brainpower of a gnat is sufficient to know, when things aren’t going well, “Change” is a good idea.

Why, then, has the “Change” mantra generated so much excitement over Obama? If good “Judgment” accompanied “Change” … with the aim being better, not just different … “Judgment” that, metaphorically, can keep us from going splat … I could understand.

Sadly, many who are excited about Obama and “Change” remain so in the face of indications of his lack of good “Judgment”. This list grows daily … far too long to address here. Choosing to sit under the teaching of Jeremiah Wright for nearly 20 years is very troubling. Ironically, the one that’s most telling about lack of fitness for the Presidency is the cornerstone of Obama’s candidacy … he wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq … again, metaphorically, he wouldn’t have allowed us in front of that windshield in the first place.

Based on intelligence at the time, every other subsequent Presidential Candidate supported our President’s decision but, somehow, as an Illinois State Senator, Obama knew that going to war in Iraq was a mistake. It turns out, the intelligence was wrong and mistakes resulted. How did Obama know better? Was it ESP? He hasn’t said. He just says we need “Change”. Frighteningly, his “Judgment” hasn’t led him to the “Change” that’s most needed here … better intelligence. That means, if Obama becomes President, if he gets the same sort of menacing intelligence we had about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (or Hitler’s Germany or Tojo’s Japan), proactive military action would not be an option. If that happens, wave your little gnat wings goodbye … we’ll be going splat on the windshield of the world.

Price-Per-Barrel, Band-Aids and Bludgeons

Arguably, the single most important issue in the U.S. economy is the current unprecedented rate of increase in the price-per-barrel of crude oil. Unarguably, our “Leaders” are still offering no well thought-out cohesive plan to address this matter that’s been in crisis-mode since 1973. Instead, they continue to offer Band-Aids and Bludgeons.

Band-Aids are things like the gas-tax holiday endorsed by Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain or Congress calling in oil company executives to yell at them about their morally questionable level of profits. While these actions illicit gut-level reactions, they’re not solutions. They are, at best, Band-Aids.

Bludgeon describes how politicians use this to beat on each other. Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama provides a classic example of this. He uses this as yet another opportunity to use the disingenuous phrase “Bush/McCain” and to lay the blame for this crisis at the feet of his political opponent. This completely ignores the fact that every President, Senator (including himself) and Member of Congress, since 1973, has screwed this pooch. Instead of a true “Change” to true leadership that leads to much-needed real solutions, we get the same old political expedience of just blaming the other guy any chance you get. The result? No real solutions, just more Bludgeons.

Well, I’ve had enough! In late 1978, when I was 30, I accepted a promotion and moved from Indiana to Southern California. When I got there, I found that you could only get gas on alternating days, depending on the ending number of your car’s license plate. And, on those alternating days, you’d still have to wait in line for gas, hoping that the filling station you’d picked didn’t run out. To make matters worse, the price for gas was approaching an outrageous $1.00 per gallon! I remember the Tonight Show’s Johnny Carson saying, “Just wait. Once gas gets to $1.00 a gallon, there will be all the gas you want.” I guess he was right. Once there was enough supply, the price didn’t seem to matter that much and not much changed.

So, here we are, 30 years later, I’m now 60, I’ve moved from Southern California to the Pacific Northwest, gas is over $4.00 per gallon and finally, something about our nation’s energy dependence is beginning to change … our driving habits. Charles Krauthammer addresses this well in his recent column entitled “At $4, Everybody Gets Rational”. Once the price exceeded $4.00 a gallon, it did matter to us and the change in our behavior is forcing the “Captains of Industry” to respond.

I guess that’s a good thing and that Krauthammer is right … Its too bad that it takes this sort of “gun to the head” circumstance to change our driving habits but that key needs to remain in place if, as a nation, we’re ever going to achieve energy independence. But, this involves the behavior of “Followers”. What about the behavior of our “Leaders”?! Where is their cohesive plan, now 35 years overdue, that: Safely produces more domestic crude oil and refined product, includes rational and expedient development of alternative fuels, leverages pricing for the products that OPEC imports from the U.S., etc.?

Certainly, I’m not alone in my views on this and I’m confident I’m not even in the minority. What I’ve pointed out up to now isn’t exactly “news”. The question remaining is what do we, as individuals, do about this? Well, we can still “throw the rascals out” with the power of our vote. After 35 years of inaction, whether they have a “D” or an “R” (or any other party-affiliation) after their names, they deserve to be thrown out. If, in over a third of a century, they can’t address such a clearly urgent matter, which can just as clearly be resolved, how can we rely on them for other concerns and why shouldn’t we give “the other guys” a chance to do better?

For me, the time to act is now. I look at what has happened while our “Leaders” have continued to let this matter drift since I was 30. We can’t “unscramble that egg” but lets have enough concern for where our nation will be 30 years from now, to put true Leaders in place who will do better than just continue to let us “go with the flow” into oblivion. There’s no telling if I’ll see 90 but, if things don’t change, I imagine my departure having to be much less elegant than my arrival. I plan to be cremated. Without significant change, I imagine that my Wife and dog will have to drag me to some designated public spot where two sticks can be rubbed together to get me started and I can be used as fuel for something, including the smoke-signals that are used to relay the news of my passing. Part of why I imagine that black-comedy scene is to try to make myself laugh to keep from crying. I do not want to spend my “Golden Years” in depression, both economically and emotionally, as a result of what we allow to continue to happen to our great nation. So, I’m going to do what I can, including doing all I can to “throw the rascals out”. That means I will not vote for anyone, at any level, who isn’t supporting a well thought-out cohesive plan for our nation’s energy-independence. Can I make a difference alone? No. But, if I’m right, that I’m not in the minority on this and those who agree act in unison with me, we will make a difference. In addition to being a difference that keeps my sorry ash from going up in smoke signals we can make a significant and true “Change” that keeps our nation on its course of greatness.

McCain’s Defense of Hagee

OK, there wasn’t one. As a result of controversy that was raised up about Pastor John Hagee within the past few days, Senator John McCain rejected the endorsement Hagee had given his presidential candidacy, without any apparent attempt to come to Hagee’s defense.

At the center of the mentioned controversy is an argument Pastor Hagee included in a late 1990s sermon. Those who unearthed this sermon, sum up Hagee’s argument as saying, “… the rise of Adolf Hitler was part of God's plan to help the Jews reach the Promised Land.” If that’s an accurate summary, I think Pastor Hagee is wrong. I’m a man of faith and I believe that God does know the end from the beginning so I would agree that God knew what Hitler would do. I, also, believe the Bible and what it tells us about the nature of God. As an example, in Romans 8:28, we’re told, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.” In other words, though God knows of the evil that men will do, He sees to it that it leads to good anyway, for His people. So, while I can see that applying to the mind-boggling evil that Hitler did, it isn’t in God’s nature to raise up that evil Himself. With that said, I guess I can see how Hagee could get carried away and come to the conclusion he did but I don’t agree with that conclusion and I would agree with McCain in rejecting that conclusion.

However, it wasn’t just that conclusion that McCain rejected. He rejected Hagee’s endorsement and in doing that, he rejected Hagee himself. In order to understand McCain’s character and his fitness to be our next President, I think it’s appropriate to ask … Why was there no apparent attempt to come to Hagee’s defense?

Of course, I can understand why it was politically expedient for McCain to reject Hagee’s endorsement. Especially, in light of how McCain’s detractors have relentlessly dug for anything they can find to counter the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stigma that McCain’s opponent, Senator Barack Obama, carries. But doesn’t Hagee deserve better? McCain actually sought out Hagee’s endorsement. And this past February, Hagee stood up for McCain, in the way McCain wanted. I trust that Hagee did this, fully aware that McCain has his flaws. McCain admits to this, himself. A good example came this past MLK Day; when McCain appeared at the site of MLK’s assassination and stated, “I was wrong. I was wrong.” And “We all make mistakes. We all make mistakes”, regarding his original opposition to establishing MLK Day, as a National Holiday. Perhaps McCain’s original opposition to MLK Day was out of some well-intended but misdirected over-exuberance. Whatever the reason, McCain, himself, now rejects that position and yet, he asks that we not allow this admitted error to cause us to reject him or his presidential candidacy.

Why, then, isn’t Senator McCain extending the same consideration to Pastor Hagee that he asks for himself? Perhaps Pastor Hagee wouldn’t admit to being in error. I don’t know. What I do know is that it troubles me that McCain rejected Hagee without any apparent attempt to give him that opportunity, so he might continue to stand up for him. It makes me wonder how the “Captain of the Straight-Talk Express” will stand up for me, in spite of my flaws. Although I’m, presently, a McCain supporter, I have to wonder if I can count on him once he finds out that I voted for Ambassador Alan Keyes for President, in California’s 2000 Primaries. I heard Keyes speak at my church and every time he spoke, he uttered my views. Since then, Barack Obama beat him like a drum, in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate and with his few appearances in the current presidential campaign; I’ve been embarrassed for Keyes. Maybe I was just overly enthusiastic about Keyes’ speech at my church but, considering what I’ve witnessed since then, I have to conclude that my judgment was flawed, in casting my Year-2000 Presidential Primary vote for him. Does that mistake, with or without admitting to it, mean that Senator McCain would reject my support and thus, reject me? Maybe so and maybe I’d understand it, in a way. Maybe that would be the politically expedient thing to do. But is that what we want our nation’s character to be founded on? Political expedience?! Shouldn’t we be willing to stand up for those who stand up for us … At least to the extent that, before rejecting them, we give them the opportunity to acknowledge their mistakes so that we can continue to stand up for them? I’ve done that for Senator McCain and so did John Hagee. But, that’s not what Hagee got from McCain, in return. John McCain is an unquestionably-genuine national hero. My gratitude for all he’s done for us and our nation is undying. Regardless, I’m disappointed that I didn’t see the courage of an unquestionably-genuine national hero in the way he dealt with this recent controversy, that was raised up around John Hagee. My hope is that he will revisit this in a way that assures me that we can continue to count on John McCain to courageously stand up for us all, imperfect though we are.

America's 21st Century Civil War

When asked about the state of the U.S. economy, Hillary Clinton first takes the opportunity to imply some similarity between John McCain and Herbert Hoover. At the same time, Senator McCain delivers a speech addressing, “Senator Obama's fantasy plan for making us safer." Meanwhile, Barack Obama compares Senator Clinton to Walter Mitty, in responding to her "mistake", in recounting her visit to Bosnia, as First Lady.

I understand that these tactics are common, for providing political leverage but how do they help our nation? None of the three current Presidential Candidates mentioned are perfect but, though their approaches differ, I trust that each of of them actually have hearts to serve our nation. Why, then, do we so consistently hear these sorts of slams while we ALMOST NEVER HEAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANYTHING GOOD IN OPPONENT'S POSITIONS, that would in fact serve the best interests of our nation?

Maybe you agree with John McCain's positions and maybe you don't but he is unarguably a genuine National Hero. The late-night comics seem to be getting a lot of mileage out of repeatedly saying that McCain is "really old." I get a laugh out of it and Senator McCain appears to too but isn't it a shame that this sort of thing masks a greater truth ... that, for a guy who was tortured in the equivalent of a kennel cage for six years, he looks pretty good? Then, he came home to continue to work tirelessly to serve his nation. With a guy like this, wouldn't we be better off if McCain's opponents were courageous enough to embrace the good they see in his positions and build on that? After all, McCain's positions on Government Spending, Border Security, Environment, etc., haven't always been completely in line with his party. Surely, there's something in there that Clinton and Obama can draw on that would add to their strategies.

With Hillary Clinton, its not uncommon to hear about her "unlikeability." Whether you want to have dinner with her regularly or not, you have to admit that she's worked hard to prepare herself to serve and she has, in fact, worked hard in serving. Currently, she gets a lot of criticism for claiming "experience" through her roles as First Lady of Arkansas and then, of the U.S. Perhaps much of that criticism is deserved but, if so, she at least equally deserves consideration of that old adage about the most difficult instrument to play being second-fiddle. And, very obviously, her challenges were even greater, as the result of the "fiddling" of the one she was striving to support. You'd think that a person of her caliber would have some ideas about strengthening our middle class, our families and our schools that could be useful in the plans of her opponents.

Many question Barack Obama's substance and the scrutiny his judgement is currently getting over the church he's associated himself with for nearly 20 years seems legitimate. But the guy seems to have some desirable natural leadership qualities and he's speaking out about a number of issues in our culture that have gone untended for far too long. With his intellect, surely he can contribute to a number of challenges but you've got to admit, he's uniquely qualified to address some cross-cultural matters. Wouldn't the U.S. culture benefit more if Clinton and McCain acknowledged their void in an area that Obama can so richly fill?

Unfortunately, our nation has drifted away from what I'm suggesting. Its a quality that made us great in the first place. Some think of it as Yankee ingenuity. I say its a greater strength that comes from the synergy of the best of our differing ideas. Instead, what we've gotten, for quite some time, is having those who say their purpose is to serve, pitting themselves against each other over any difference they can find. The most remarkable evidence of this is what's known as "The Redstate/Bluestate Divide", that became so obvious with the first Presidential Election of this century and millennium.

When Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel came out with their book, Common Ground - How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America, I was hopeful it could start a groundswell of interest that would turn us back in a more productive direction in this regard. I even dreamed that my Presidential Candidate (now dropped out) would pick up on this and champion the cause. Neither happened and that's a shame because I don't think we're just missing out on doing something good here. I agree with Thomas and Beckel that this is a "...Partisan War That is Destroying America." I think of it as America's 21st Century Civil War. Of course, it doesn't really compare with our 19th Century Civil War but, much as was the case with the circumstances that led to The War Between The States, if these circumstances aren't addressed and turned around, I believe it will continue to lead to our decline, as a great nation.

So what's the solution? I think we should look to that first Civil War for the answer. There was no "groundswell of interest" to turn us back in a more productive direction. Instead, our country split in two ... North and South ... and gunfire broke out "across the aisle" between the two sides. It was the bloodiest war we've ever known. Thankfully, Abraham Lincoln stepped into that breech and proved himself to be one of our nation's greatest heroes. Without Lincoln's courage, its doubtful that our nation would have survived that time. Although the circumstances of the North/South Split differ from those of the Redstate/Bluestate Divide, the results could be as tragic. My hope and prayer with this is that a 21st Century American Hero will rise up and have the courage to step into this "Divide" before it leads to a point of no return in our nation's decline. Does anyone see a true hero like this on the horizon? I guess we'll know when we see one of these, who say their intention is to serve the public, changing the words they use and more importantly, changing their actions to match.

"... the content of their character."

Maybe Barack Obama just wanted to change the subject or maybe he genuinely missed the point. I don’t know. Only he and God know what’s in his heart. I do know that, in his speech today, he didn’t address the main point concerning me in the firestorm of controversy that has arisen in recent days over comments made by the Pastor of the “black church” where Obama has placed his membership for nearly the past 20 years.

As this matter has intensified, it struck me that the definition of my related concern was embodied in the famous words of a former Pastor of what is, arguably, the most prominent “black church” in America. I’m talking about Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church and its former Pastor Martin Luther King Junior when he said, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” These words planted much needed seeds of change in me, when I was growing up in what was, practically, still a “separate but equal” part of the Midwest. So, what I was looking for from Obama’s speech today had nothing to do with “… color … of skin …” My interest was “… content of … character” … Obama’s character and why his judgment would lead him to associate himself so long-term and so intimately with a church that has advocated and even championed many comments that Obama now condemns. Obama’s speech today addressed none of this.

No doubt, Obama is an excellent speaker and today’s speech was a good speech … about race. In fact, I agree with many of the points he made on this topic. His comment that, “The most segregated hour in American life comes on Sunday morning”, is sadly true. As a man of faith, this has troubled me for quite a long time. But, in context with the matter inciting today’s speech, I’ve wondered if what we’ve seen about Obama’s church over the past few days is typical of a “black church” in America. Again, I don’t know the answer to this question. My experience in this regard is limited. Ironically, I do have experience with a “black church” Obama mentioned in his speech. It’s the one I mentioned earlier … Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church. We attended there while visiting Atlanta about four years ago. At the time, we were long-term members of a conservative church in Orange County, California. The congregation there reflected the ethnicity of Orange County i.e. - As of 2005, the African American population was 1.9%. As you might expect, the ethnicity of the congregation at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, on the Sunday we attended, was pretty much opposite of what we were accustomed to. And, I did notice some political comments coming from the pulpit early in the service. I was quietly indignant about this until I thought about the fact that I’d heard political comments come from the pulpit in our Orange County church too. I was only "letting my nose get out of joint” because my political views are more in line with what I was used to hearing “back home.” Beyond that, though, I only knew that I was worshipping with Brothers and Sister, in Christ. The Pastor taught a wonderful lesson from Romans, Chapter 8. And the congregants couldn’t have set a better example of keeping what the Lord said were the most important commandments … Love God with everything you’ve got and show that by loving your fellow man as you love yourself (my paraphrase). I don’t know how the congregation at Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church could have done more to make us feel welcome and loved.

So, which is the typical “black church” in America … Obama’s or Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church? I don’t know. Probably, neither. But, its clear that there are alternatives to the “black church” Obama chose, as his, for nearly 20 years. There are many indicators of a person’s character. I think one of the most telling indicators is the others that a person chooses to associate themselves with long-term. Obama did not address this and I see this as showing his character to be very suspect.