Worth Getting Angry About

“First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about,” Mitt Romney said when challenged on his stand healthcare mandates during the GOP debate in Jacksonville.

It would be easy to take this statement and write about why Mitt Romney is one of the worst possible choices we could make for President, or to write about the evils of socialized medicine; but there is a bigger issue here that needs to be addressed.

The implementation of socialized medicine in America is probably the largest power grab by the federal government in modern history, and is definitely something “worth getting angry about”; but moderate politicians such as Mitt Romney are part of the crowd that views the federal government as a source of power rather than as a defender of our freedom.

For years we’ve heard about the virtues of being a moderate and of being in the political center. Those of us who have strong political convictions are labeled as ‘extremists’ and looked upon with suspicion. It’s quite alright to get excited about a football game or an auto race, but there are two subjects we’re told to never discuss in public – politics and religion, two of the most important areas of our lives.

Chuck Holton is a Christian author whose most recent book, Making Men, examines the detrimental role passivity plays in the lives of men. Passivity, according to Holton, is a lack of passion that results in a man failing to live up to his calling in life. I believe that passivity is just as detrimental to our nation as it is to our families. By subscribing to the notion that strong opinions and firm convictions are extreme we are allowing ourselves to be lulled to sleep while our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us. Much like the proverbial frog in a pot of lukewarm water, we are slowly being boiled alive by the demand for tepid politics.

In 2008 conservatives lost the fight for the GOP nomination, leaving the plain vanilla John McCain to carry the GOP standard into the general election. Ronald Reagan often spoke of “raising a banner of bold colors, not pale pastels”. The moderates in the GOP establishment are waving a banner of pastel pink, and would have us believe that only the Prince of Pastel Mitt Romney defeat Obama, but we cannot be so foolish as to buy into that line a second time. If John McCain was plain vanilla, Mitt Romney is vanilla crème.

There was a time in this country when men who made statements such as “Give me liberty, or give me death” were applauded as patriots and heroes. Now, Patrick Henry would be labeled an extremist and probably put on a no-fly list. Imagine what would the ladies on The View have to say about Thomas Jefferson, who said “what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

If there has ever been anything “worth getting angry about”, if there has ever been anything worth fighting for, if there has ever been anything worth dying for, it is the ability to live our lives free of tyranny and oppression. We owe it to those who fought and died to give it to us, and more importantly, we owe it to those who depend on us to give it to them.

South Carolina Primary Observations

Okay, the results of the South Carolina GOP Primary are in, and Newt Gingrich is the big winner. Although this primary is important, the race is certainly not over. There are however, some important observations that we should make.

First of all, this clearly demonstrates that the “politics of personal destruction” no longer carries the weight it once did. The whole ‘ex-wife interview two days before the election’ thing not only didn’t hurt Newt, it may have actually helped him. The entire incident also demonstrated how important it is to have a candidate who is quick on his feet and willing to stand up for himself. One has to wonder how much more effective George Bush would have been as a President if he had been as defiant as Newt.

Another thing worth noting is that campaign organizations and abundant cash aren’t the be-all and end-all for a candidate. There is even reason to believe that ideas might once again have a place in the election process. Mitt Romney has been running for President since the 2008 campaign season, and had an already established campaign organization ready to go. Add that to his large amounts of cash of which we have been steadily reminded, and one would expect that this race should have been a walk in the park for him. So far, that has not been the case.

We can also discount the notion that a candidate must have the blessing of the party establishment to succeed. Although Newt has served as House Speaker, he certainly is no darling of the GOP leadership. Despite their obvious fondness for Romney, Newt managed to pull off a double digit win.

One of the more satisfying observations for me is that, despite their best efforts, the media was not able to choose the winner. Newt was unwilling to grovel before the media talking heads, rendering them totally impotent and largely irrelevant. His epic smack down of John King won’t soon be forgotten, and will make anyone else think twice before attempting to deliver a killer ‘gotcha question’. Hopefully, other potential candidates for public office were taking notes, and will learn from Professor Gingrich.

“Electability” will become one of those words that should fade out of the public lexicon. For months, or years really, we’ve been lectured about Romney’s “electability”, and hopefully that whole idea will be put to rest. It’s pretty hard to argue that Romney is the only candidate that can defeat Obama if he can’t defeat the other candidates in the race given all of his advantages. Electability has to be demonstrated rather than bestowed.

The final and possibly the most important observation to make is that, contrary to what Harry Reid would have us believe, the Tea Party is far from dead. With South Carolina being a hotbed of Tea Party activity, Gingrich won the Tea Party vote by roughly a 2:1 margin. Obviously, Romney failed in his attempt to convince the Tea Party that he really was a conservative despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

We are still at an early point in the GOP Primary process, and as we have seen, almost anything can happen. Newt has a big win under his belt now, but he has a long fight ahead of him. Already word is out that that a group of evangelical leaders are lining up to support Santorum in an effort to derail Newt, and there is little doubt that the GOP establishment will double down on their efforts to coronate Romney. Needless to say, the next couple of months will be very interesting.

Defending The Constitution

As one might expect, I sometimes engage in political discourse with some of my liberal friends (yes, I do have some), and quite often during those discussions we find ourselves debating the constitutionality of various liberal positions. In virtually every case, these liberals are woefully ignorant of the Constitution, which of course explains their ability to hold the political views that define them as liberals.

Typically when I ask them to cite the particular section of the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority it must have relative to the issue at hand, a vague reference to the “general welfare” clause is the best they can do. More often than not, they resort to claiming that the Constitution was written in different times in different circumstances, and that it wasn’t meant to be interpreted literally. Taking position of course, means that they have conceded that the Constitution really does not support their position and that the desired action is outside the lawful authority of the federal government. Sadly, most of them aren’t dissuaded by that knowledge.

I remember one such conversation with our family doctor, who supported Obamacare. When I pointed out the fact that the plan was unconstitutional, she asked “Does that really matter?” Prior to our discussion about Obamacare, she had been complaining to me about a neighbor who was trying to build a fence several yards on her side of their common property line. Sadly, she didn’t see the correlation between her neighbor infringing on her private property and the government infringing on her rights. At that point, I knew we needed to find a new family doctor.

This notion that the Constitution shouldn’t be “interpreted literally” is one that is almost as ridiculous as it is dangerous. Unfortunately, we often let the liberals spout the line without immediately challenging the assertion and nipping it in the bud. For the record, legal documents are written by people who spent many years in school learning how to write them in very precise language for the very reason that they are intended to be ‘interpreted’ literally. The reason we go to that much effort is that these legal documents must comply with laws that are written in very precise language because they are intended to be complied with literally. Would you feel comfortable going in front of a judge with the defense that you didn’t interpret the law literally?

This being the case would it then be reasonable to believe, as our leftist friends would suggest, that our entire precisely written legal system is based upon a nebulous document that is to be left open to ‘interpretation’? Of course not, that would be as silly as building a finely engineered skyscraper atop a mound of shifting sand. Naturally the left likes the idea because it frees them to implement their extra-constitutional programs.

The fact is however, that our founding fathers wrote the Constitution in very precise language because they were all quite familiar with the perils of a tyrannical government and knew full well the tendency for government to expand its control over the people. These learned men intended for the Constitution to be read rather than interpreted. All too often, we have Supreme Court justices who subscribe to the liberal idea that their job is to interpret the Constitution, when in fact their job is to read the Constitution and determine if the law in question complies. Hamilton addressed this very notion in Federalist Paper No. 81, where he said: "…there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."

They also knew full well that times would change, which is why they provided a mechanism by which to amend the Constitution as deemed appropriate by the people living in those times. That mechanism is deliberately slow and cumbersome, requiring the expressed consent of a wide majority of the people to make even the smallest alteration to the document. To suggest that the opinion of five unelected people is sufficient to change the meaning of the words written in the Constitution flies in the face of all we know about the intent of our founding fathers. In 1819 Thomas Jefferson wrote "The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Those who desire to have a government that controls every aspect of our lives would like for us to follow their views on the Constitution, and it is our duty as citizens to resist and counter this lie every time it is told. It is just this type of lie that Jefferson warned us about when he said, "Freedom is lost gradually from an uninterested, uninformed, and uninvolved people".

Why Not Mitt?

Following the 2008 election, somewhere in the smoky back rooms of the RNC, it was agreed that it was Mitt Romney’s turn to be the party’s nominee in 2012. Unfortunately, Mitt’s difficulty in gaining a clear majority in the polls clearly shows they forgot to convince the rest of us. Over the past few weeks every political commentator in America has opined on the various reasons why the GOP faithful haven’t bought reserved seats on the Mitt bandwagon, and while some have come close, none have hit the mark. Fortunately for America, I’m here to do what none of them could do. Well, at least in my mind anyway.

To be quite honest, figuring out why Mitt’s poll numbers have been so weak is less difficult than trying to figure out why they’re so high. It’s pretty much a given that, if you take both sides of an issue, you stand a better chance of losing followers on both sides than gaining any. Mitt of course, has staked a claim on both sides of pretty much every issue he could find. Of course the other candidates have alienated people as well, so I’m thinking Mitt has attracted the sum total of the people who have been alienated by all of the other candidates.

I will have to admit that I do like Romney’s business experience, including his time at Bain Capital. Despite the unpleasant nature of some aspects of that business, I can see a real need to have someone in Washington who has the ability to trim the fat from bloated, inefficient organizations. Currently, he is taking positions on most major issues that I could be quite happy with, but there are certain things that I find quite troubling.

Most of us are quite familiar with his past sins revolving around RomneyCare. That in itself is enough to give any good conservative reason to keep a healthy distance, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that Romney really does understand that the government has no business controlling our healthcare.

The single biggest red flag for me has to be Romney’s many positions on gun control. I say many positions because he has done a considerable amount of flip-flopping on the issue, but so far the only position he has failed to take is the right one. His so-called support of the 2^nd Amendment is only skin deep, and his rhetoric on the issue tells me that it owes its existence to the need for conservative votes.

Admittedly, gun control has not taken center stage in this campaign, but the issue is very important. Also, a candidate’s position on gun control is a prime indicator of the candidate’s understanding of the Constitution. For instance, Romney claims that his support for a Massachusetts gun control bill was due to the fact that overall the bill loosened up licensing requirements and “allowed more people to have guns”. This statement is troubling on several levels. First, because it shows that he believes it is up to the government to “allow” people to have guns. Another is that he wasn’t doing his best to repeal a state law that is in direct violation of the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

One thing that is imperative for any elected official to understand the limits of his authority and where those limits are established. Judging by Romney’s own words, I can only conclude that he simply does not get it. That one simple fact is why conservatives cannot bring themselves to support Romney.

Open Letter to GOP Presidential Candidates

Okay, enough is enough. I feel like I’m talking to my kids here.

New Hampshire is behind you now, and the South Carolina primary battle is well underway. Newt is attacking Romney for his stint at Bain Capitol, and everyone else is attacking Newt for attacking Romney. All of you need to get a clue.

All of this yammering about Mitt Romney’s work at Bain Capital is getting ridiculous. Some of the things they did might not be particularly pleasant, but business is business. Frankly, the fact that Romney has experience at cutting the fat and firing excess employees is one of the few things that work in his favor. We need to do a lot of that in the federal government, and Romney would be well suited for such a task. If you want to attack Romney, you can find a lot of things that will be more effective. If you can’t think of any, give me a call.

I’m also not concerned about Newt Gingrich being paid for giving advice to Freddie Mac. That is what his company was in business to do, and Freddie Mac was a paying customer. It may not have been the best idea for him to accept them as a customer, but it’s not like he was contracting to work for Al Qaeda. Honestly, if Freddie Mac had offered me $1.6 million for advice, they would have had to make me another offer to get me to shut up. How many people actually know what Freddie Mac does, anyway? Somehow, I doubt it really matters to most Americans.

All of you are claiming to be the only real conservative in the race. True, some of you are more conservative than others, and all of you are more conservative than Obama; but let’s face facts – all of you have had some lapses in your conservative credentials. It might be in your best interest to look forward rather than back.

Yes, what a politician has done in the past is fair game in a campaign, but by now we know who all of you are and most of what you’ve done in the past. Either we’re going to overlook your mistakes or we’re not. The same goes for your opponents. Knock it off.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that you should all be friends and hope for the best. I know as well as anyone that negative advertising works, so I have no problem if you want to do some. The idea is, after all, to win the election; I get that. The key however, is to run negative ads that people are interested in hearing. So far, you have all fallen well short of the mark.

Rather than hammer away at each other over things that don’t matter a lot, how about we talk about things that are actually going to be important in the future? If you want to criticize your opponent, let’s talk about how your economic policies will be better than his. Tell me about the differences in the way you would handle Iran, or about your ideas to save Social Security. Let’s discuss the differences between your energy policies, or perhaps your thoughts on taxes. Talk to me about what you plan to do, and why your plans are better than the other guys’. These are the things that we need to hear.

Rethinking Debates

Last night’s GOP Debate XIV on the ABC Network was, I am told, probably the most ridiculous thing on television. I don’t know that first-hand because I couldn’t bring myself to watch. Instead, I spent my time reading a good book (Chuck Holton’s most recent publication, Making Men, which is a great book if you’re interested). I did review some of the highlights (for lack of a better term) and read some of the commentaries about the event. By all accounts, I made the right decision.

What happened last night was typical for the Obama re-election super-committee otherwise known as the network news media. Diane Sawyer and Co. pretended to be debate moderators while focusing the discussion on the liberal agenda as they attempted to goad the GOP candidates into making statements that would come back to haunt them. Instead of discussing the genuine issues that affect the majority of Americans, such as unemployment, the housing crisis, and our currently failed foreign policy, they chose to waste the evening asking questions about gay marriage and other topics near and dear to the far left.

Of course, none of this should have come as a surprise to anyone. Let’s face it; the major network news agencies all make their bread and butter on sound bytes and “gotcha” journalism. We already know they work as the public relations arm of the DNC, so there is no reason to expect objectivity. We also know that it is in their best interest to generate controversy to increase the ratings on their show, so there is no reason for us to expect journalistic ethics to play a part in the way they conduct the debate. Why would anyone expect a different outcome than what we got last night? Given the blatant bias of the network news organizations, I have to question why the GOP continues to take part in these ‘debates’ hosted by news anchors? News agencies are supposed to report the news, not create it.

Last November, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain took part in a debate hosted by a group called the Tea Party Patriots. The debate focused on important issues, was very informative and at no point did I feel that watching it was a waste of my time. The only thing I can see that would have made it better would be for the other candidates to have taken part as well.

With the experience we now have after the series of debates so far, it would be wise for our candidates to agree on standards for future debates that relegate news anchors to their rightful place – reporting on the event rather than moderating it. Debates should be hosted by organizations that are rightfully interested in relevant issues, and moderated by people who are objective and professional. Of course the networks will want to continue hosting their own debates rather simply covering someone else’s, but as Donald Trump recently learned, they need the GOP candidates worse than the candidates need them.