Saturday, September 29, 2012


If you have read one of my blogs before, you realize that I am profoundly conservative, both socially and politically.  I do not think that I was necessarily born that way.  I am a product, to a great degree, of my upbringing and my early school education. I liked to read a lot growing up and, like a good part of my generation, I watched a lot of television. I tended to gravitate towards historical programs, if they were available.  My parents were socially conservative and generally politically conservative, in theory, though my father was a registered Democrat. However, I am relatively sure that he would be apposed to what the Democrat Party embraces, if he were alive today. The point is that I had pretty good conservative roots.  As I grew older and began to think for myself, I struggled with the fact that the things I was being told by society and popular media were distasteful to me. Part of this is because I am a religious man and much of what society is pushing these days is 180 degrees out of my comfort level. By 1980, I became a died-in the-wool Conservative. My political thought had become firmly entrenched in conservatism. I knew what I felt, but like most people I wanted to reinforce my feelings with logical thought. I have spent significant time and effort the last few years trying to educate myself, or reeducate myself in some cases, to better understand our history. It is extremely valuable to know where we came from philosophically and how this nation and culture evolved.  So I have read and, in some cases, reread documents and books to reaffirm the things I understand and believe. If you want to know how I arrived at my current state of belief, I would suggest the following books and documents which I have read and studied:

The Declaration of Independence; it needs to be read every 4th of July to remind the thoughtful patriot of why our forefathers thought this government was necessary.

The Constitution of The United States; especially the first ten amendments known as our Bill of Rights; The Bill of Rights made the rest of the document relevant. It should be read every year as well.

The Federalist Papers; these are the arguments put forth by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, to interpret the Constitution and belay the American people’s fear of a more powerful central government and to show that its powers would be limited and would not trample on personal liberties. The Anti-federalist Papers argued the opposite, but I admit that I have read those more sparingly. After all, their arguments did not prevail and the Articles of Confederation, which the anti-federalists were not anxious to abandon, were a total failure and were leading the fledging United States to an early grave.

The Bible, The Book of Mormon and The Koran; though other religious texts can be read and studied as well, these books are invaluable, if read with the intent of understanding what makes their adherents tick.  The Bible and Book of Mormon are, in a nut shell, about people who are admonished by God to be faithful to Him and to love their fellow man, and how, if they become prideful and ignore God’s power in their lives, they will, of their own doing, become ripe for destruction.  The Bible was the root of the Judeo-Christian culture that drove the founders and eventually inspired them to create a republic like ours. The founders, such as Samuel Adams, were steeped in the study of The Bible and saw their state as similar to the children of Israel. The Bible showed that people needed to trust in God and not the arm of the flesh. Against God’s will, the people of Israel rejected the rules of judges and asked for a king. They suffered almost continually thereafter because of their choice. The Book of Mormon also endorses the rejection of kings because a people can’t always count on having a good one. The Book of Mormon is especially relevant to America in what Mormons perceive as the Latter Days. The story line in The Book of Mormon parallels our current time, if you believe that Christ is returning soon and that wickedness sows the seeds of destruction. It also specifies America as a land of promise, which will be blessed as long as its inhabitants are righteous and worthy.  I’ll probably get my head cut of for saying this (hopefully, only figuratively), but The Koran seems to me to be very disjointed, erratic in its doctrines and extremely uninspiring. It seems to be mostly about Mohamed’s revelations to rewrite events in prior scripture and to teach followers to bring others into subjection. It is easy to see how extremist Muslims can interpret their scripture to kill and terrorize non-Muslims. The Allah of The Koran is much scarier than Jehovah of the Old Testament. The Koran is a must read to get a more accurate picture of the religious fanatics who want to carry its teachings to the destruction or subjugation of all non-Muslims. I have read several books on Mohamed and Islam but, though some of the books were sympathetic, my discomfort with jihadist mentality was not eased.  The point is that one cannot judge a book by its cover. If the book is revered as God’s word, it warrants actual reading before discarding.

Plato’s The Republic, Machiavelli’s The Prince, Thomas More’s Utopia, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, and John Locke’s and Montesquieu’s Treatise on Government ; More, originated the term ‘utopia’, but all of these books or documents describe what the authors believe to be the utopian or most ideal political system. Machiavelli describes how to create power and rule by force. The Machiavellian approach to gaining power can be recognized in many of the rulers on the Left. Plato actually describes several options, but none are an actual democratic republican form as we have. All of the systems envisioned by these men, with perhaps the exception of Machiavelli, were socialistic in nature and depended on an enlightened ruler or ruling class to keep order. However, there is not much in their theories to explain how to keep the ruling class in order. Locke and Mantesquieu are the odd men out here, though. Locke’s notions of natural law, moral duty and limited government along with Montesquieu’s ideas about divided powers in government, namely executive, legislative and judicial, were the fountains of thought that the founders turned to when issuing the Declaration of Independence and constructing The Constitution of the United States. If you don’t want to take the time to read all of these works, but want to get a good understanding of their basic messages and how they have historically impacted world politics in general, threaten our system or endorse our form of government, you can read Mark Lavin’s Ameritopia. As is his wont, he has thoroughly studied the subject and puts these works in true context.

I have also read numerous biographies of our founding fathers. If you want the best understanding of the lives of the founding fathers and what they wanted to create, I would suggest that you read about the lives of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and read as much of their own words as possible. I have read several biographies on George Washington, including: George Washington: A life, by Ron Chernow; His Excellency: George Washington, by Joseph Ellis and Being George Washington, by Glenn Beck. Washington was the most impressive man of character of his time. He was truly indispensable in the formation of our nation. He set a very high standard as our first president, under our existing constitution. Very few have come close to him since.

Franklin’s autobiography is a good start in studying him, and then you should go on to read Walter Issacson’s Benjamin Franklin: An America Life.  Benjamin Franklin was a remarkable intellect among the intellectual giants of his time and he was considered by his contemporaries as the first great American.

I also recommend biographies of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The ones I have read are: David McCullough’s, John Adams, Joseph J. Ellis’ Founding Brothers, and Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow.  These books show how very different personalities united in purpose to form a unique nation and, against the warnings of George Washington in his farewell address from the presidency, inadvertently created a party system which divided the nation for the rest of its history. 

Other historical figures of whom I have read biographies with much interest include: Daniel Boon, Andrew Jackson, Davy Crocket, Abraham Lincoln, Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver, W.E. B. Dubois, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and both George Bushes.  Each of these historical figures made lasting impressions on their contemporaries and represented a particular world view. The political figures, in particular, changed the direction of politics and the philosophical direction of the nation for important lengths of time; some for the good and some for the bad, in my opinion. I particularly enjoyed reading Ronald Reagan’s diaries. It was a window into the man and his true character, that even an autobiography could not sufficiently provide.

I recently read Barack Obama’s Dreams From My Father and encourage others to give it a read.  Again, you cannot theoretically discard a book without actually reading it first and sustain complete intellectual honesty.  If after reading it, there is any doubt in your mind about his screwed up view of the world, I would ask you to read Dinesh D’Souza’s The Roots of Obama’s Rage.  There can be no doubt as to what Obama is doing to the country, as his “useful idiots” enthusiastically follow along.  They should read both too.

Since I am conservative in my politics and world view, I try to read all of the conservative books I can fit in. I have read the historically utopian viewpoints that Liberals keep trying to resurrect from the bone yard of political thought and I easily reject them out of hand. The arguments against such silliness are legion. Books of a conservative viewpoint which I have read in the past few years that strengthen my position include: Thomas Sowell’s  Basic Economics and Black Rednecks and White Liberals; Ann Coulter’s Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America,  How to Talk to a Liberal, If You Must, Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, and Godless: The Church of Liberalism:  Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression;  Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning;  Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged; and David Horowitz’s autobiography, Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey.

 Sowell’s books explain how the real economic world works and how we have misconstrued the origins of “black” culture and unveils liberal fallacies.  He is meticulous in his research and might be the most intelligent and practical man, who happens to be a black man, in the country.  Ayn Rand was pretty morally messed up when it comes to life style, but she was right -on about the destructive effects of socialism, and how it destroys the spirit of innovation and work ethic.  Atlas Shrugged is a rather laborious read when the characters drone on for pages making a simple point so, after a page of a character’s argument, you can skip a few pages to the next event and you will not miss anything. Nevertheless, you should read it once.  I found David Horowitz’s book about 15 or more years ago and found it fascinating. He tells of his parents being communists and how it was the plan for the Communist Party in America to join infiltrate the Democrat Party and take it over, moving it towards the radical Left. He tells how, as a radical Marxist, he worked with the Black Panthers and Weathermen organizations, but that he eventually became disillusioned with their politics and violent intents and of his conversion to conservatism.  The rest of these books are highly researched and historically accurate exposes of forgotten history. The Left, since the days of Woodrow Wilson, has been controlling the history that our children and young people study from grammar school through college, shaping their views and attitudes. These books mentioned above put history straight and have helped me understand that my innate world view is correct.    

The study of history and philosophy must be a part of our education, if we are going to have a chance of making informed decisions, come election time. With our vote, informed or not, we are nudging our nation in one direction or the other. My study of history shows that we have been, with a few exceptions, steadily moving away from the founders’ model. If you think moving further left is good, you should do so fully informed. However, you will not be informed by today’s mainstream media. Their agenda is clear to anyone paying attention.  They have bought into the old utopian idea that socialism is a perfect solution to the world’s ills.  The problem is that socialism has lowered the creativity and production of the people subjected to it in every place in the world it has been tried. My study has shown me that individual liberty and the pursuit of individual happiness should be every person’s goal.  Artificially making the playing field level for everyone limits the gifted and encourages the less gifted not to try. 

Granted ,most of my reading leans toward conservative thought, but I have invested time in studying the classics and recognize that all liberal thought is generated by the same utopian sources mentioned above.  I read Obama’s book and concluded that it was self promotional tripe. Researchers have since discovered that much of it was made up of whole cloth. He deliberately “combined” some of the characters and fabricated certain events to better lay out his narrative.   He intentionally hid the identity of some of the persons in his autobiographies, like his old mentor “Frank”, who was in truth the “poet”, Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party and part time pornographer.  It would not do for his political aspirations, for him to divulge too much about his past associations and their philosophies.  Incidentally, his mentor, Frank is not even mentioned in Obama’s audio version of the book. When the occasional light has been shown on his past connections and affiliations, the New York Timeses and NBCs of the news media totally ignore it.   I’ve found that I can get more information about the Left’s true agendas from writers and news outlets on the Right.

Most Americans think they have no choice or they do not care.  They will, in time, realize that they have foolishly given up another piece of their freedom to be a little more comfortable in their lives, but only when it is too late   My challenge to anyone reading this blog is to get yourself a clue. Don’t vote until you know something and form a truly informed opinion.  Read a good book!

Saturday, September 22, 2012


I am frustrated. I would like to address primarily Jews, Catholics, Evangelical Christians and Mormons. I read an article the other day about Mormon Democrats who proclaimed why they were proud Democrats.  They stated that they were for better education, caring for the poor and helping the poor out of poverty, etc. and that the Democrat party was their champion to make those things happen. I am sure that there are those among the Jews, Evangelicals and Catholics who are thinking the same things.  Are Republicans or Conservatives against those things? I know that I am for those things. I am taught, as a Mormon, to share what I have with the poor, to help my fellow man perfect himself, to be self sufficient, and to revere education, which I would assume my fellow Conservatives among Jews, Evangelicals and Catholics do as well. But, our religions teach us to do those things on a personal level, not to turn those responsibilities over to the state. Do you Democrat Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals and Jews not understand that the current Democrat Party is not the same Democrat Party that your grandparents belonged to?  The Democrat party, until they were “outed”, had removed God and Jerusalem from their party platform—you should know the back-story on this if you have paid attention—and when they were caught and tried to voice-vote the words back into the platform, they embarrassingly dictated the reinsertion over the obvious majority of “No” votes. The current Democrat Party supports repressing religious speech in public places and promotes abortion on demand!  This Democrat Party is trying to socialize everything! They have gone farther and farther to the left over the last fifty years. We, as Christians and Jews, should be standing up for personal rights, not collective rights that give more and more authority to our governments. Christianity and Judaism are all about personal salvation and commitment to God and your fellow man, but collective salvation is what you endorse when you vote Democrat at this time in history.  The Democrat Party is more in line with Marx’s Communist Manifesto than the U.S. Constitution. You might want to read them both. 

I have thought much about why people vote against their personal beliefs for party sake.  For example, I understand that the news media is overwhelmingly liberal, as are the pop celebrities and most of those who work in the entertainment industries; they have been that way for most of the last century. But, do they believe in Socialism or down and out Marxism?  In some cases, the answer is yes—they are recognized by their exuberance and in-your-face belligerence against any conservative thought—but, I am not convinced that all of them are. The news media come from the same journalism schools where they are taught to think that they are the guardians of information. They are taught by teachers who are personally liberal or socialistic. Then, they hang around each other and marry each other. For the most part they live in a bubble, thinking the same thoughts and saying and doing the same things. It is easy to understand that they would think the same way. Polling has produced statistics that somewhere around 90 % of the news media vote democrat. By coincidence, that is almost exactly the percentage of blacks in this country who vote democrat in every election.  No one should be surprised then that the news media would be in the tank for Obama, and that blacks, apart from the conservative blacks, would put their allegiance to perceived racial ties to Obama and vote for him this time too. That was the case four years ago and they seem to be doubling down this time around, though they have to ignore the dire reality of the state of our nation. They wouldn’t seriously vet him then, and they would ignore any stories which might show Obama in an unflattering light. A Republican or conservative is always observed under a microscope and in Romney’s case, when felonious and ridiculous stories are fabricated, the mainstream media jumps on them without trying authenticate them. In my opinion, we have a Pravda-like media, but by media choice rather than government coercion. But if the government continues its slide towards socialism, we will most certainly have that. The same is true with the entertainment media. They are constantly spilling out socialist propaganda by choice, but they will eventually have no choice.

It is somewhat understandable why blacks and some other minorities would vote for Obama in big numbers: Obama is perceived as one of them. But, they are voting for what the want to believe he is and not what he actually is. It is obvious to anyone who studies Obama, as I have pointed out in earlier blogs, that he is not just a “liberal” or “progressive”—the progressive handle by itself should scare everyone to death—or even just a socialist: HE IS A MARXIST! I know that many do not want to know that—some of you in the minority groups do not really care about that because that is what you want or you are just ignorant of what that means—but it is obvious to those of us who have looked at him in detail. Is my frustration showing? I am just beginning to vent. Why would you continue to block vote for people and programs which continue to fail? The war on poverty is a total failure. The education department created under Carter has made a shambles of our children’s education. The black families are especially hurting: More black youth are without education, work, and two parent families than ever before. More people, whether White, Black or Hispanic—I hate differentiating by labeling anyone other than “American”—there are more of you on food stamps (twice the number in just a few years) than ever before.  Blacks and Hispanics are paying just as much at the gas pump as everyone else. Why do you not recognize that the Obama administration’s energy policies have hurt you in the pocket book and sent our hard-earned money and energy jobs overseas? So what that he is the first man of “color” to be elected president. Do you support the president’s social policies? Do you think “marriage” between a man and a woman should be protected? Do you believe that late term abortion, whether the human baby is Black, White, Oriental, or Hispanic, should be protected by federal law and that you are obligated to pay for it.  Do you believe that it is your right to be sustained by tax money to the point of government bankruptcy? 

The problem is, as I see it, is that Democrats, by and large, are Democrats because their parents were, or because they want or fit in with the crowd they hang with. For some it is their religion. When traditions or peer pressure compels you to act against what is arguably in your best interest, you need to stop and question your positions. My request for all of you Democrats, be you Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Mormon, Catholic, Evangelical, Jew, Entertainer, Journalist, or College Student, is that you reflect on what your core beliefs are before you cast your vote in November, Study what your party of choice is advocating. If you think after reading Marx’s manifest, that the Marxist Socialism that we are heading towards with the current Democrat Party, is what you want, and you have read our Constitution and find it a tired old document that needs to be discarded, you should boldly say so, and proudly vote for Obama and his minions. But if you vote without a gut-check and do so because you have always been a Democrat, you are being foolish and being blindly led down the path of this nation’s destruction.

As Romney pointed out in the part of the now famous 47% video that was not shown by the complicit news media, we are 16 trillion dollars in debt, with a credit rating lower than it has ever been, and China and Russia are no longer willing to loan us money. Romney went on to point out that the Federal Reserve is now printing money to buy ¾ of our own debt to keep up our spending. If not stopped, this will make your money next to worthless and send inflation and interest rates skyrocketing.  If you read about what Obama’s intentions were, to necessarily raise the prices of energy to push us towards his pet green energy, you understand that he has succeeded remarkably.

In fine, my frustration lies in the knowledge that some of you are ignorant by choice. You will vote without trying to be knowledgeable. In my opinion, this is a serious crime.  If your religion’s positions are in conflict with your party and you vote your party, I think it is clear that your party is your religion. They say that ignorance is bliss, but I say ignorance by choice is just plain stupid! It is frustrating!   

Saturday, September 15, 2012


Surprise! The Muslim Brotherhood has turned out to be a destructive force in the Arab world and exposes still another weakness in Barack Obama’s overall understanding of all things of serious import. Who would have guessed that he was just as inept in foreign policy as in domestic policies? That would be me!

The president believed in socialism to the point that he has kept us in a miserable economy that should have bounced back within a year. The economic precipice that he and his minions have said we were at when he took office is still there and his silly policies have kept us on the brink of collapse for nearly four years. Now his foreign policy positions of apologizing for imagined affronts to the Muslim world have, like chickens, “come home to roost”. Yes, we know he gave the order to kill Osama. But, even Jimmie Carter would have made that call.  It is lamentable that he wrung his hands over possible political blow-back for so long before he gave the order. It has been reported that the military had Osama in their sites for weeks and were waiting for the okay from the president. It appears that Obama was weighing the pluses and minuses for himself politically, if the attempt failed. It has been reported by ears in the room that Hillary Clinton had to coax him into making the right decision by telling him that that it would be worse for him if it became known that he let him get away. She should know because her hubby, while president, was offered Bin Laden no less than three times and he passed on them. What a brave decision!

Now, we see the results of his brilliant foreign policy in general. Obama made a point of going to Cairo and apologizing for America’s supposed wrongs against the Islam. If we have learned anything about extremist Muslims and Islamic terrorists, we have learned that apologizing only shows weakness to them. Obama recently suggested on the campaign trail, with his usual arrogant smirk, that Romney and Ryan have no foreign policy experience. Obama, as we know, lived in Indonesia as a boy and has visited Africa and other countries around the world, and Biden, who has been on a number of congressional committees having to do with foreign relations which has made Joe an ”expert”. The truth though is pretty evident to even a casual observer: Biden is a complete fool who has been wrong about virtually everything he has put his feeble mind to; and. Obama’s ideas on foreign policy is rooted in his socialistic beliefs about the evils of white colonialism, as can be gleaned—yes, I have read his works—from his two auto biographies. On the other hand, Romney has laid out a foreign policy in his own book, “No Apologies”—yes, I have read it, and you should too—which shows an affinity to Reagan’s approach of strength and loyalty to our best allies. The recent events in the Arab world and the administration’s responses show that Obama can’t figure it out. These Muslim Brotherhood friends of his are betraying Obama’s trust in them and he doesn’t immediately, as usual, know what to say or do. On the other hand, Romney does know how to respond and he did. Romney understands that American values should be about standing tall about our first amendment rights and not trying to bend to other countries’ desires to see the great America humbled. Of course, this scares the media. They don’t want Romney to look competent. That would make the choice of American voters too obvious.

For the world’s sake, America needs to be the leader of the world, not just the free world. We, with our great and inspired constitution should be held up as a beacon for all others to look to and to emulate. Radical Islamists and their convenient allies, progressive socialists, want to destroy everything we hold dear: freedom of religion; economic freedom; and self determination.  We have been warned many times in the past that failure to be prepared, in strength and moral resolve, costs us and the rest of the free world, not to mention the not-so-free world, tremendous sacrifices of precious blood and treasure. There are always some who believe, and sadly come to power in this country, that you can reason with the unreasonable.  When we swing in their direction, we pay the price. Then, we seemingly learn our lesson and we swing the other way and get back on course. We are currently swinging way off course and we need to try to swing back on course before it is too late. Our foolish progressive mainstream media can’t see it. No surprise!   

Friday, September 7, 2012

Watch Your Step! You Might Step In Some Democrat Convention Rhetoric!

I hardly know where to start. There was a treasure trove of ludicrous moments during the Democrat Convention to comment on. It would be like walking through a cow pasture and marveling at all the Democrat statements (or, bull crap—the appropriate synonym to be used) lying about and trying not to step in them. They really stank it up with obvious dishonesty.

Let me start with the absence of the word “God” and the mentioning of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the Democrat platform this time around and their attempts to cover up their true opinions. With the way things have been going the last four years, I would have been more surprised if those things had been included. Democrats and the liberal judges they install when in power have been routing out every vestige of religious expression of faith from government that they can for the past 60 years, let alone the past four.  Dictates from the bench have been the norm.  The Democrat zealots don’t want the word “God” in our pledge of allegiance, money, courthouses, schools, etc. so why would they want it in their own platform? Even with the constant erosion of faith within the Democrat party voting block—read the polls on the subject, if you don’t believe me—I was a little surprised to see Dick Durbin be so defensive when asked by Fox News’ Bret Baier why the those things would be left out.  You would have thought that someone had set him on fire, or like he had been accused of being un-American (I have often called him that). It was funny to watch him squirm about it. “Are you trying to say we are un-Godly?” I would. 

He and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz make me crazy the way they can look you in the eye and tell the biggest whoppers, like “I never said that” after showing them the video or the audio tape of them saying just that. Miss Debbie was caught on tape this past week claiming to a Jewish group that the Israeli ambassador had confided to her that he thought the Republicans would destroy the American-Israeli relationship. After this was reported by a reporter in the audience, the Israeli Ambassador denied that he ever told Wasserman-Schultz such a thing. When asked about his statement, she declared that she never made that claim. After the tape was brought forward of her saying just that, she stood by her denial. I think that is called chutzpah.

The Democrats who wrote this election year’s platform wrote it that way because they have been watching our president for the past four years and thought it was appropriate. Has Obama done anything to make one think he was a bigger fan of Israel than Islamic brotherhood? I believe not. He certainly hasn’t been friendly to the religious in this country, obligating religious institutions to act against their consciences, by forcing them to imitate Planned Parenthood. When a flurry of obviously unwelcome questions came their way, the Democrats, at President Obama’s direction (dictate), hustled to reinstate the verbiage needed to make them look more religious and Jewish-friendly. It was comical to watch the Democrat mayor of Los Angeles call for a voice vote, trying three times to get the conventioneers to shut up when he asked for “no” vote for adding back the words “God” and “Jerusalem” to their platform. He looked like he wanted disappear every time the “No” vote came back louder than before. Finally, he just gave up and said that he judged a 2/3 majority voting “Yea’. We were told that it was an oversight or something, that Obama had no idea what wasn’t in the platform.  That’s almost as bad as the blatant dishonesty of Wasserman-Schultz! Let’s face it; I think that Dick Durbin protests too much. The majority of the Party Democrat is Godless. And a whole bunch of them are anti-Israel. I heard it for myself.

Then there were the character testimonies of Biden and Clinton. I know that Biden wasn’t making it all up on the spot, because he seemed to be reading from the teleprompter, but that didn’t make it any more intelligible than the things he normally said. Am I making an ad hominem attack? If you’ve heard many of his speeches, I don’t think so.  Clinton can string a bunch of intelligent words together in a pleasing way and make people who don’t know any better buy every word. Of course you have to forget that he is a serial perjurer and will lie to get what he wants every time. I suspect that since, as has been reported, Hillary could not be coaxed into running against Obama this time around, that his best chance for to get back to the White House was to be supportive of someone he clearly hates.

One last parting shot at the Democrats before I go; the August employment numbers came out this morning and they were not good again. Obama and the Dems claim, in Wasserman-Schultz-like fashion, that 95,000 jobs added to the economy—not to worry, it will be adjusted down next month like it has literally every week since Obama entered the White House— is still moving in the right direction. This classic distraction by one hand so that you won’t see what the other hand is doing that illusionists like to use for the gullible.  It will take twice the 95,000 jobs added to keep up with population growth. They will also claim that the 8.3 % unemployment rate dropping to 8.1 % is also a positive trend. The 8.1 number was only possible because another 369,000 Americans gave up looking for work so they were not included in the government’s flawed measure of the unemployed. The real number is over 14 percent, not including the under-employed who are working only part time or in jobs which pay much less than they earned a few years ago. According to the numbers, only 63.5 % of Americans have jobs —a 30 year low. Only the true Obama believers and ill-informed can put a smiley face on the democrat convention and the most recent economic news. Careful where you step!

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Random Thoughts Of An Old Conservative Friend

I actually wrote an intro to this blog when I first posted it several days ago, but for some reason it was lost. So, here it goes again. This blog is from a face book message from my old friend, Garry Wilmore. Garry and I met when we were Mormon missionaries in Santa Ana, El Salvador, a few months before I returned to the States in 1973. Garry was focused on politics even then and would often find time to read "National Review" along with the scriptures and many times would do his impression of William F. Buckley Jr.--one of my favorite characters from his "Firing Line" PBS show--much to my amusement. As he mentions below, he and I watched the 1980 election results and celebrated out mutual hero's (Ronald Reagan) victory that night. Garry and I share a love of conservatism and our religious faith. I wanted to share Garry's thoughts here because they mirror mine and because I enjoy his literary gifts. He can express my thoughts even better than I can without the tendency I have to throw an occasional barb. Sorry, that's me. So, here is what Garry had to say. See if you don't agree:

These are some random thoughts I'm sharing with a few people who I figure are likely to agree with them. I am not sharing them on my main Facebook page because I am tired of all the sniping that goes on there regarding political issues. Some of it is downright vicious. I believe people can disagree while still being civil, but apparently that idea has gone largely out of fashion now. If I mention that I am now convinced that Obama is actually a worse president than Jimmy Carter -- which, let's face it, was one tough accomplishment -- that makes me a racist. I support traditional marriage and took part in the Chick-fil-A appreciation day a few weeks ago, so I am a hatemonger, too. I am religious and a member of a church with a strict moral code, which makes me close-minded and intolerant and of the same spirit as the Taliban. I want to impose my narrow and bigoted worldview on humanity in general. And because I actually LIKE Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, I'm also, on top of all the foregoing, an empty-headed idiot. Etcetera, etcetera.

So with all that in mind, here are my observations. Discussion and comments are invited, of course.

1. I am actually starting to think Romney might pull this one off. One good reason for this -- and others will follow below -- just occurred to me a couple of days ago, and I haven't seen or heard it mentioned by anyone else. After the '08 campaign, Ann Romney told her husband that was it, and they weren't going to go through that ordeal again. Four years later, Mitt wasn't inclined to make another run, but Ann, having had a change of mind, talked him into it. A woman's intuition is something to reckon with, and I suspect Ann Romney's is exceptionally good. Does she know something that the rest of us don't? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

2. Even Paul Ryan's detractors admit that he at least is someone to be taken seriously, and his designation as Romney's running mate says something good and reassuring about the candidate. Romney isn't afraid of being upstaged by Ryan, which tells me he is not insecure at all. Ryan is a serious policy wonk. His speech last night reminded me of Reagan. Romney did very well to choose him, and the thought of him being next in line for the Presidency does not trouble me at all. Meanwhile, last night my wife said she is anxious to see Paul Ryan debate Joe Biden in a few weeks. Using language I employ only rarely, and then only regarding something I feel VERY strongly about, I responded by telling her that "I hope he kicks Joe Biden's ass." He probably will. Biden is an idiot, which apparently even some Democrats are willing to concede. I can sympathize with his propensity for gaffes and maloprisms, which is a trait I share with him, but I am not a public figure, to say nothing of being one heartbeat away from the Presidency. 

3. Finally, this is starting to feel eerily like 1980. I was a Reagan supporter all the way through, but by Labor Day that year I was starting to realize that in addition to not believing Jimmy Carter was a good president, I actually disliked him as a man. The Reagan campaign brought out Carter's mean and ugly side, which, as bad as it was, pales next to Obama's. I can no longer subscribe to the popular notion that Barack Obama is a likeable man, whatever his failings might be as President. And I have disliked Michelle ever since her contemptous remark last year, at some public ceremony, that all that fuss was being made over "just a flag." She clearly hasn't a clue what the country is about, and one cannot imagine Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan saying such a thing. (Even if Nancy had, her husband would surely have chewed her out right then and there!)

Now, here is one other similarity to 1980, and I hope this one pans out the same way. Reagan was behind in the polls for a long time, and while the gap gradually narrowed, as late as the evening before the election the network anchors were all saying it was too close to call. We all know what happened the next day. (Randy, I watched the returns that evening with you and your wife, remember?) 

I wish Barack Obama a long life and a successful career in what he appears to be best at, which is community organizing in Chicago. I don't believe he should teach constitutional law anymore, however. I question how well he even understands the subject, but I think his contempt for the Constitution is pretty obvious. 

And if Romney is elected, I think he will surprise a lot of people. I believe he has the potential to be the best president since Reagan. And I wouldn't mind seeing Paul Ryan in the White House someday as well, although I don't want that to happen for at least eight more years.