Political Scene 2012

How Obvious, Really?

2010-10-02T08:32:00.000-07:00

Mr. Obama's upbringing, his education and his perspectives were shaped by those who were not advocates of American Exceptional-ism, nor did they accept the Divine providence in the founding of our Nation and Constitution. In fact, America wasn't anything special, a country like all other countries, maybe even less than such. Further, Mr. Obama explained while running for President that his upbringing outside of the US was an advantage, giving him a deeper well of foreign policy experience. Unfortunately and as a consequence of his upbringing and "foreign policy" experience, Mr. Obama has yet to and probably never will, adopt the basic and fundamental principles embedded in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, nor will he abide American Exceptional-ism. As such he is not the advocate that we require of our President. What we are now experiencing his complete and utter disregard for what differentiates the US in the world of nations, because he doesn't believe we are different, nor should we be. He, and his minions, have done more dismantle our Nation, our Constitution, our freedoms, our democracy and our economy than any other person in the history of our country.

Illustrated in this piece are a couple of key points - his failure to recognize and fully quote by whose hand we are endowed (intentional?), and his attempt to neutralize the defining moment of our Nation by minimizing its founding and consequential integrity and rule of law through rationalization and justification. It is amazes me that he justifies the appropriateness of being an illegal immigrant because they were here first. Really?

We're Back - And yes, it is time for "Change" and "Hope"

2010-10-02T08:18:00.000-07:00

With the mid-terms a month away and America careening down its current destructive path, the quiet majority has awakened with a want for change - this ad reflects clearly our need and hope for a coming change - Vote for Change, Vote Wisely!!! An interesting, but poignant twist from the original ad by President Reagan.

With such change, we can hope for what 2012 brings with Mitt Romney and then, like before he can offer what Ronald Reagan shared after his first 4 years - the original ad

Check Your Brain At The Door

2009-02-11T06:17:00.000-08:00

Power and the pursuit thereof must be an amazing aphrodisiac. Without any interest in cynicism and in all sincerity, why is it that many of our political leaders check their brains at the door when taking office? And, some of our business leaders as well.

Energy Independence -
I was listening to NPR this morning and found the discussion of energy independence quite interesting. Our new Energy Secretary, Ken Salazar, was dismissing past Administration policies on off-shore drilling, indicating that it needs more study; not because we don't know enough about fossil fuels, but because we don't know enough about alternative energy. When will we ever? Of course economics have altered the discussion lately with oil prices down significantly. What am I missing? Do we stay our current course and take no action while we continue to ponder what might be? Do the proponents of wind and solar truly believe that wind and solar are the sum of the solution of energy independence? Rest assured, I am not advocating that fossil fuels are the sum of all of our energy ills, nor that alternative energy sources are without value or merit. On the contrary, logic and reason tells us the solution to energy independence resides in a comprehensive solution. Wind and solar have a role to play, conjunctive with fossil fuels and derivatives thereof, and nuclear. We have proven technologies presently in the market that offer alternatives and solutions. Why is it that we struggle so in looking to the solutions that presently exist in the market? The logic and reason seems to have escaped our political leadership of the day causing us to be mired in their political pandering and pursuit of self-interest over meeting America's need. The want for continued debate without decisive action creates its own dynamic that unfortunately empowers our political leadership and prolongs their perception of self importance.

Economic Crisis -
Surely we are faced with significant issues in our economy and the solutions are not simple by any measure, but why is it that we should trust and rely upon our political leadership (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, and others), most of whom are far from expert on economics, to lead the way? Appreciating that our new Treasury Secretary is a bright and capable guy, yesterday's result from his long awaited speech was very telling. The political influences of the day seem to offer entitlement as a solution. They distrust our financial institutions and seem to lack faith and confidence in the foundations of our US banking system. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a solution. They fail to realize the multiplier effect of money in our banking system as a means to drive our economic vitality. They continue to punish the banks at the expense of needed solutions, born of their distrust and the fact that they feel they know better. The punitive accounting policies of Washington are doing more to destroy our banking system than selected elements of greed and idiocy in some CEO offices. We gain more leverage in a solution with the banking system than without. However, the populus messages from Washington would advocate otherwise. The more we debate, the more we empower Washington, and the more we lose.

Corporate Executive Offices -
What are some of these guys thinking - they truly have checked their brains at the door. The former CEO of Merrill spending $1.2 million on an office remodel? The CEO's of the auto industry riding their private jets to Washington for financial relief? The vacuum these guys live in has gone to their heads and reason and logic have left the building. Even so, not all corporate offices are like the exceptions proffered in the media. These are the exceptions and not the rule in corporate America. The media frenzy on these stories are good fodder, but do not represent what is good in our corporate leadership. The politicians will play this tune, again and again because the populism promoted empowers them, for "they will protect us, they know better." We are the greatest economic superpower because of the depth of those who run our businesses, large and small, and the model our economy is built upon, not because of the politicians who run Washington.

Hopefully, most of America doesn't follow the lead of our politicians and selective CEOs, and check their brains at the door.

Why California Needs Meg Whitman

2009-02-10T19:31:00.000-08:00

It couldn't be illustrated more clearly than in the article below. The alternative candidates are without the needed experience and capacity to address the crucial issues facing the State. As noted previously, as California goes, so goes the nation. May Californian's choose wisely.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

By JIM CARLTON and BOBBY WHITE

BIG SUR, Calif. -- As Sacramento squabbles over the state's $42 billion deficit, Californians are getting a bitter taste of what's to come after the steep budget cuts that are inevitable when legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger finally hammer out a deal.

Some world-famous parks like Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park may not open this year. After-school programs in low-income areas are being scuttled, putting high-risk teens on the street just as police forces are being cut. Schools are closing classrooms, and some highway projects have ground to a halt. The state may not be able to monitor some sex offenders as required under law.

A budget deal may restore some of the missing funds. But everyone knows that not all monies will flow again after a deal, and Californians increasingly fear they are seeing a hint of their future.

Jim Carlton/The Wall Street Journal

A state parks superintendent inspects the site of an unfinished bridge at California's Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park. The world-renowned park on the Central California coast may not open this summer because funds to complete a new bridge to a large campground have been frozen amid talks by California lawmakers to resolve a $42 billion budget deficit.

Jim Carlton/The Wall Street Journal

Concrete buttresses have been built for a bridge crossing the Big Sur River to a campground on the other side, but work to finish the bridge itself was still underway when the project ground to a halt a few weeks ago.

"Before it gets better, it's going to get a lot worse," said Joseph Valentine, director of Contra Costa County's Department of Employment and Human Services. The department, which administers social services such as food stamps, has cut 12%, or $25 million, of its budget. It has managers answering reception-desk phones, and Mr. Valentine expects another round of cuts.

The empty coffers have hit some California icons. Pfeiffer Big Sur may not reopen this summer because work on a new bridge to the campground was halted, part of a $6 million renovation project that state officials have ordered frozen along with hundreds of millions of dollars in other state infrastructure projects. Dan and Vickie Coughlin of Torrance, Calif., face not camping in the park with their daughters, ages 10 and 13, for the first time since they were born. When they were advised they couldn't book reservations, "it just broke my heart, and my kids almost cried," said Ms. Coughlin.

Other states face budget cuts too, but California's budget mess stands out for its size. Its deficit is projected at $42 billion by mid-2010. Since Gov. Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency 14 weeks ago, he and lawmakers have been deadlocked over how to close the gap. Democrats want tax increases and moderate spending cuts; Republicans seek deep cuts and no tax increases; the governor wants a combination.

The governor's office warned Tuesday that if no budget deal is reached by Friday, the state would send layoff warnings to 20,000 workers. Gov. Schwarzenegger also said he intends to cut 10,000 jobs through layoffs and attrition to save $750 million over 17 months.

Meanwhile, the state is raising money in unprecedented ways. The treasurer's office said Tuesday that it is close to selling $200 million in general-obligation bonds to the Bay Area Toll Authority, a municipal agency, to fund public-works projects around the San Francisco Bay area.

While Sacramento talks, money is drying up in places like Contra Costa County, where 40,000 families have applied for 350 available slots for Section 8 vouchers -- a federal subsidy that allows low-income families to rent in the private market. "The level of desperation is just heartbreaking," said Joseph Villareal, executive director of the Contra Costa Housing Authority.

California Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park
Jim Carlton/The Wall Street Journal
Pfeiffer Big Sur is so popular that campsites like this one,in a grove of towering redwoods, are almost always booked as far as seven months in advance.

Marin County's Novato Unified School District alarmed parents with a proposal to cut its entire sports program to help save $6 million over two years, which would affect about 75% of Novato's 8,600 students. "When the community heard about the possible cut, they freaked out," said Superintendent Jan La Torre-Derby, who adds that "it's not set in stone yet."

The California State University system -- the nation's largest -- faces new cuts after already seeing reduced class offerings, increased classroom sizes and delays in students being able to graduate after a series of budget cuts in recent years.

Things could get worse as more budget cuts loom. The state may not be able to monitor sex offenders as required under a 2006 law that calls for sex offenders to be on GPS monitoring for life and to live more than 2,000 feet from schools and parks. In January, corrections officials said they were monitoring all 6,622 paroled sex offenders with GPS devices, after Gov. Schwarzenegger set aside $106 million in last year's budget for the program. But because the law contained no revenue-raising mechanism, authorities say it is unclear whether they will have funds to continue monitoring.

—Stu Woo contributed to this article.

Write to Jim Carlton at jim.carlton@wsj.com and Bobby White at bobby.white@wsj.com

Our "Leadership" in Washington?

2009-02-10T19:26:00.001-08:00

I have been wondering why I haven't been sleeping well recently. With individuals like these "leading" our nation gives me pause - they surely are not concerned with the interests of the American People.

Should we trust John Kerry to "invest" our money?

Or, perhaps Charles Schumer?

Meg Whitman for Governor

2009-02-09T11:31:00.000-08:00

Gratefully, Meg Whitman has chosen to run for Governor of California. California leads our nation on many fronts, and its current fiscal crisis is not without consequence to our nation and hoped for recovery. California needs a capable leader like Meg. As a friend, I know she has the discipline and capacity to lead the state of California back to a solid footing. Please check out Meg's website and commit to help her lead the state by signing on to her campaign. Her sense of duty and service are grounded in correct principles and I have absolute confidence in the care she will take to lead the state with conservative family values.

Thank you Meg!

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

2009-02-09T07:55:00.000-08:00

When challenged by King George to abandon the cause of liberty and join with his "king" and stand with Great Britain, for which he would be duly compensated, Samuel Adams stated, "“I trust I have longsince made my peace with the King of kings. No personal consideration shall induce me to abandon the righteous cause of my country." Samuel Adams stood on righteous principles and stood with backbone in defending what was in the best interest of the people of our nation.

Surely, at our founding we were a blessed nation with men and women, divinely inspired in a righteous cause, freedom. They understood liberty and its defense, they also understood the role of economics in preserving liberty and freedom. As I read the paper, listen to the news and study the words of those who are "leading" us today - I have to ask, "Where have all the leaders gone?" There is no reason or righteousness in their profferrings. If ever there was an inflection point in our society, it is today, and the need for the Samuel Adams' of the world, those who place the righteous cause of the people and freedom over self, it is now. Unfortunately, we are left with a leadership of appeasement without the capacity to stand on correct principles. Our leadership is more concerned with preservation of power, position and personal wealth over the cause of the people.

I thought initially, that we could survive sufficiently under the leadership of President Obama for 4 years, in spite of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the minions that follow them. I am now having serious doubts that they will take us into an irreconcilable economic calamity. President Obama has defaulted to Congress and has failed to lead or direct them to any whit. He has pandered and become subordinate to the handlers and advisors of the liberal left and Bill Clinton. He says the White House is confining and his staff is overworked and tired - really? They have been in office for less than a month! In that month, he has nominated 4 senior officials who have failed to pay income taxes, nominated lobbyists to key positions and deferred to Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats to write a "stimulus" bill laden with "pork."

Bloomberg has posted an interesting article today (see here), which doesn't bode well for what lies ahead. $9.7 trillion in bailout funds - what happened to reason, checks and balances, and the much needed leadership that stands for fundamental and correct economic principles? Instead, we are left without and will suffer severe consequences. If we stay the course, President Obama and this Congress will have done more to damage our society than any other in history, both economically and socially.

I consider myself a conservative. I am a Republican by party affiliation and support the recent election of Michael Steele, hopeful that he can restore the party's role in conservative politics. Even so, my current disappointment rests with both Democrats and Republicans, although more so with the Democratic leadership - they are without backbone and principle.

The video posted herein reflects my opinion of our current Democratic leadership.

May we, as a nation, be prayerful for our future and stand for what is right. May we not fall prey to the temptation of apathy and mediocrity, wherein we are blindly led down an irreconcilable path. Write those in Washington, make your voice heard, become politically active, hold our leaders accountable. For those in California, a state that is leading our economic calamity, look to those seeking to lead and choose wisely. When Meg Whitman announces her candidacy for governor, join in the cause.

Charles Krauthammer Couldn't Have Said It Better

2009-02-06T08:33:00.001-08:00

Charles Krauthammer's recent summary in the Washington Post says it all. See below.

The Fierce Urgency of Pork

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 6, 2009; A17

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."

-- President Obama, Feb. 4.

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.

The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.

He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.

At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.

And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance.

The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

American's Need to Speak Out and Pray for Barack and America!!!

2009-02-04T10:24:00.000-08:00

Recent proffering from our leadership in Washington poses a number of significant concerns -

1. Nancy Pelosi. I know that many dismiss her already, but this woman, elected by a small liberal left in California, is the Speaker of the House - 3rd in line for the Presidency of the United States. Recently she was quoted as stating that their are 500 million Americans losing their jobs each month, when we have a total population of 300 million. She probably believes that 9 billion homes are under threat of foreclosure when we have a world population of 6 billion. Slip of the tongue, how about slip of the brain? If this were a single incident, we would likely let it pass, but... She also believes that "family planning", code words for birth control and abortion, is good for our economy. Has she not observed what is happening in Europe with declining birth rates and demography? Europeans are not reproducing (birth rates well below 1.5 per woman on average) and as a consequence are a declining population, whereas the European Islamic population is booming (better than 3.0 births per woman, on average). These changing demographics are having a profound affect on Europe and its vibrancy, economic and otherwise. And then there was her comment that of all people, she is bi-partisan and apolitical, this from a woman who is known for her public disdain for George Bush and all things Republican. Again, let me repeat, she is 3rd in line for the Presidency.

2. Joe Biden. This person is 2nd in line for the Presidency of the United States. There are not enough words in the English language, or space on the internet, for the gaffes, mis-statements and hyperbole of Joe Biden. Nice guy, but clueless. Let us hope that President Obama sees clearly the need to limit the role of the VP to attendance at state funerals. Again, let me repeat, he is 2nd in line for the Presidency.

3. Barack Obama. This person is President of the United States. His recent quote on the need for economic stimulus is indicative of his economic philosphies and proves the point on why we are left with the current "stimulus" package. Barack stated, in reference to GOP criticism that the stimulus package needs to include more tax cuts, and less for other programs, "I reject that theory, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change." This is a man that believes the challenges before us are best solved, not by enabling the American people, but by enabling the US Government at the expense of the American people. He further believes that Americans are supportive of increased taxes, feeling a "patriotic duty", to quote Joe Biden, to give our money to the government to spend as they are the better steward.

Seriously, we need to pray for Barack; that he will choose to be humble, rather than be compelled, and change his course - after all, he is the agent of change. America and its people will not prosper under these policies and philosophies. We need to further pray that Barack will serve as President for a full term, the alternatives would be devastating.

In summary, the conclusion is to hold fast for 4 years and look to Mitt. The previous post is illustrative of why. It is unfortunate that our current President, albeit a nice guy, has become intoxicated with the adulation and power - that he has yet to realize he is the President and needs to lead. Instead, he is still running for President. Further, it seems that in his continuing run for the Presidency he isn't standing on principle, but is standing on appeasement. His cabinet choices reflect upon him, and that is disconcerting, at best. We need a man of sound moral character and principle to lead our nation. Pray for America.

Romney's Six Steps to Strengthen the US Economy

2009-02-04T06:09:00.000-08:00

Mitt's speech before the GOP Retreat last week - He has it right! Obama can no longer vote "Present," he has to lead. But where? Mitt Romney's counsel is wise and should be followed if we are to come out of this recessionary climate. Absent his leadership, my hope wanes.
Thank you for the warm welcome. And thank you for the vote you took this week. You stood strong. You stood for principle. You put the best interests of the American people ahead of politics. I got some calls yesterday, after the news. They said what I feel. We want you to know that we’re proud of you.

It sure feels good to be in a room full of Republicans who came out ahead on Election Day. You can be proud of your success. And don’t be afraid to remind the President of this: you, too, won your election.

After my own campaign was over, Ann and I just wanted to get away from it all. We ended up in Beijing, about as far away as you can get. We went to the Olympic Games, and one of the events we attended was women’s beach volleyball. I noticed a lot of people looking in our direction, pointing toward us and taking pictures. It’s always nice to be recognized, and I told Ann, let’s be sure to smile and look our best. Ann said, they might like us even more if we got out of the way—Kobe Bryant is standing right behind you.

A few months have passed since the election. It’s enough time to consider the outcome and take stock of our party’s future. I want to make clear that I’m optimistic: our ideas are good, our agenda will make America stronger, and your action this week showed that we have the kind of leaders who will stand up for what they believe in.

I have often been asked what I think the Republican Party must do to recover. What I’ve said is this: My first concern isn’t about our party—it’s about our country.

In fact, the two are closely related. The best way for us to advance the prospects of our party is to do what we know is right for the country. This is what the American people expect of us. And that’s what we should expect of ourselves.

This is a time of hardship and uncertainty for millions of Americans. The question is: whose leadership and ideas will turn things around. And in such a moment, it’s our job to offer the clear answers, the proven solutions, and resolute leadership that will make this country strong again.

The new President and the Congressional majority are having a difficult time doing that. After all, they have a lot of campaign rhetoric to make good on. And they’ve got plenty of special interests to pay back. As the opposition party, we’re entirely free to do what is right for the country. There are certain advantages to that kind of freedom, and I suggest we make the most of them.

That begins with a clear analysis of what’s needed to get the economy moving again. Predictions that we are almost out of the woods, based on the length of prior recessions, are wishful thinking. Americans have lost some 11 trillion dollars in net worth. That translates into about 400 billion dollars less annual consumer spending in the economy.

There’s something else people don’t talk much about: The pool of investment capital—all the money available for new investments, business start-ups, business expansions, capital expenditures, and new hiring. The size of that pool has shrunk by trillions of dollars. This was a huge loss in value, and the effect could be felt for years—in businesses that don’t start up or grow, in jobs that don’t get created.

Given these extraordinary conditions, I am convinced that a stimulus is needed.

So why not just spend and borrow with reckless abandon? Because we’re in a very delicate situation that could easily get worse if Washington does the wrong thing. The package which passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we’ve borrowed so much already, that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis. We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar … or hyper-inflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.

We’re on an economic tightrope. That’s why it is so important to exercise extreme care and good judgment.

So far, the Democratic leadership hasn’t shown a great deal of that. They’ve passed 355 billion in infrastructure spending, 60% of which won’t be spent by the end of 2010. Billions for electronic medical health records—it’s a fine idea, but it won’t produce jobs for years and years.

Even worse are the liberal payoffs—50 million dollars for the National Endowment for the Arts, hundreds of millions of dollars to the states for STD prevention and education. Until your loud protests got it dropped from the bill, there even was 200 million dollars for the DC Mall. That might have grown some grass, but it wouldn’t have grown the economy. And they’re doing this when the economy is on a tightrope.

It’s still early in the administration of President Obama. Like everyone who loves this country, I want him to adopt correct principles and then to succeed. He still has a chance to step in and insist on spending discipline among the members of his own party. It’s his job to set priorities. I hope for America’s sake that he knows that a Chief Executive can’t vote “present.” He can’t let others run the show. He has to say yes to some things and no to a lot of others.

We need to stimulate the economy, not the government. A true stimulus package, one that respects the productivity and genius of the American people, could lift this country out of recession. And experience shows us what it should look like.

First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it’s stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That’s why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus. Even Christine Romer, the President’s own choice to lead the Council of Economic Advisors, found in her research that tax cuts are twice as effective as new spending.

Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.

As we take out non-essential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they’ve got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks last year and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved. Businesses aren’t stupid. They’re not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one time, short term blip.

You know, by proposing tax rebates, the Democrats are admitting that relief to families and employers works. Why can’t they shed their ideological bias and give the American people the kind of permanent, broad based tax relief that even they must know will relieve the suffering our country is going through?

Fourth, if we’re going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending. This is more important than most people are willing to admit. I mentioned the economic tightrope before. There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing—from the budget deficit and from the stimulus—that world investors will begin to fear that the dollars won’t be worth much in the future. They may fear hyper-inflation. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing. Senator Judd Gregg is rightly proposing a new bipartisan approach. It should be part of this bill.

Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.

And finally, let’s exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Without restraint, it may grow as the days go by. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of 233 billion dollars. The Washington Post said, and I quote: “Romney’s plan is way too big.” So what critique do they have for the size of the Democrat’s package? I’m afraid they’ve caught a bad case of liberal laryngitis. It’s everywhere these days.

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector—entrepreneurs and businesses large and small—can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

The difference between us and the Democrats is this: they want to stimulate the government, and we want to stimulate the economy.

Government does have an obligation to address some of the abuses we’ve seen in the markets, particularly in the mortgage finance market and the mortgage guarantee sector. But when markets work as they should, when they are effectively and efficiently regulated, free markets create jobs and boost incomes.

As Republicans, we remain the confident voice of limited government and free enterprise. These principles are going to face another test when it comes to healthcare.

We should be first to propose a Republican plan to bring health insurance to all Americans, one based on market dynamics, free choice, and personal responsibility. I think what we did in Massachusetts is a good model to start from, but whatever direction we take, let’s not simply react to what the Democrats do. Their own plan would undoubtedly create a vast new system of costly entitlements and bureaucratic dictates, burdening the people and threatening the economy. Americans will be looking for a better alternative. Let’s give it to them.

Let’s also defend the rights of workers—against coercion and intimidation. The working people of this country should be able to unionize the way their fathers and mothers did – by free choice and secret ballot. The Democrats’ plan to take away those rights would result in economic calamity. More than that, it’s an insult to the dignity and common sense of working people. We’re going to defend the freedom of workers and the rights of labor. Interesting, isn’t it, which party stands up for workers and which one jumps for union bosses.

Ours is the party of freedom and enterprise, and we are the party of life. I know that I’m not alone in wondering why our new president, in the earliest hours of his administration, directed that international groups that promote and provide abortions be funded with American taxpayer dollars. Is that really what the world needs, more abortions?

In our party, we don’t have perfect agreement on the life issue. But with an administration that is firmly on the side of abortion, that answers to the most extreme wing of the abortion lobby, our duty is clear. We should be a voice for moderation and compassion. And even if the administration will say nothing on behalf of the child waiting to be born, we must take the side of life.

The new administration has also gained the favor of liberal commentators by pledging what it calls reform in the treatment of detainees who have taken up arms against America. And of course, President Obama says he will close Guantanamo.

But I wonder if he noticed that some of the men already released from Guantanamo have turned up in new al Qaeda tapes? I also wonder where the President now intends to send the terrorists we capture. Will he send them to nations that will release them to kill Americans? Or will he send them to US prisons, to infect our own criminal population?

There may be more steps like closing Guantanamo—and they will receive the predictable applause from law professors, editorial boards, and others who have no responsibility for protecting American lives. The Washington Post last week announced President Obama’s actions with this headline: “Bush’s War on Terror Comes to a Sudden End.” I hope this President knows that the terrorists are still fighting and killing Americans, and that they plan to keep killing Americans.

Here, too, our party will speak confidently. We have no greater duty than a vigilant defense.

This great party of ours has seen setbacks before. They have never defined us. For our party, I believe this will be remembered as the time when we demonstrated the strength of our convictions, when we defended the foundations of America’s prosperity, security and liberty.

America will be tested. It’s not for us to choose every new test that may arise. But we’re entirely free to choose how we will face those tests. We’ll face them as you did this week. And we’ll face them as Republicans have done before in our finest moments—with the clarity and the confidence of those who put their country first.

That is the work you have undertaken as Republican members of the 111th Congress. You gather in smaller numbers than last year, but you have ideas, energy, and convictions—and the resolve to lead America to a better future. The comeback for our nation and for our party starts with you. You can count me as an ally in the work ahead. Thank you.

The Political Scene's of 2009

2009-01-26T19:52:00.000-08:00

We're back and offer apologies for the absence. The Christmas holiday was extended due to unforeseen technology glitches. Albert Einstein once said (paraphrasing), the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results. After 3 notebook computers (Sony, Toshiba and HP, and Windows Vista), I have converted to the stability of iMAC. Many might have thought that the absence was due to depression given the state of the markets and politics, which may have been justified given events of the past 60 days. Rest assured we have been observant of the political machinations around us and now have 7 days of the Obama Presidency under our belt - whew! What ride it has been and yet, will be.

Some passive commentary -

Our nation is laboring in the midst of a significant defining moment, an inflection point that few have seen in their lifetime. Even so, with perspective we are not in the midst of declaring our Independence, nor are we in the midst of the Civil War, World War II, or the Great Depression. Yes, we are facing challenging times with economic and societal decline, however I would submit that amid these difficult moments, we face an even greater challenge, a defining moment of ideology.

If ever there were a need for principled leadership in our society, it is today. If ever there were a need for leaders with experience and discernment in what truly matters, it is today. If ever there were a need for leaders who stand firm in what is right and good, it is today. And yet, at the behest of the media and an unknowing electorate, we are relegated to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and yes, President Barack Obama, those who believe that the US Government is the answer to all our ills, not the American people; that people need not be accountable, for the government will reconcile and resolve our failings.

In his first 48 hours as President of the United States, Barack Obama held true to certain promises in the campaign, and in doing so has undermined our Constitution and security. In an effort to appease his left leaning advocates and the media, either by Executive Order or lack of leadership, Barack Obama has taken steps on that slippery slope, the path of which will lead to increased conflict in the middle east, further deteroriation of our economic vitality, subordination of the US as an economic superpower, and the dilution of our freedoms and liberties. With a hope that he would lead from a moderate platform, he has shown an inclination to the far left. I suppose it is best said, politics as usual in Washington. Now that I have vented, my hope remains that the actions taken to date are without substance and stand only as neutered offerings cast to the feet of the left.

Like unto Bill Clinton, the Obama administration is emerging as one built on marketing and appeasement without foundational principles to guide it - say what people think they want to hear without thought to what is right. The consequence of such failed leadership is a "holiday from history" where our nation and its peoples will be acted upon and not called to principled action, for the government absolves our accountability. The moral standards of natural law and Nature's God, are absent in our leadership in Washington and if we stay the course, we will see the transformation of our government as no longer a government for the people and by the people. The state and federal nation will be supreme and its people's subordinate.

Recent news posts are illustrative of these points -
1. Advisors within the Obama Administration are advocating the nationalization of the US banking system, and the disenfranchisment of all shareholders of banks. Yes, there have been some failed institutions, but the significant decline in our banking system is resultant more from failed policies and accounting dictates than poor management. For example, a large regional bank today declared their 4th quarter earnings, a loss of nearly $500 million. Notwithstanding the loss, $450 million of which was a result of imposed regulatory accounting dictates, the bank made money operationally for the year. The bank sits with very strong liquidity and capital reserves, but because of government imposed accounting dictates they took a loss that will most likely be recaptured when markets return to normalcy (a failed mark to market policy). The stock of this bank is off from a high of 70 twelve months ago to 12 today. These legislated and dictated policies are undermining solid financial institutions, and yet the answer from our legislative and executive branches of government is to consider nationalizing our banking system?
2. Barack Obama's answer to economic stimulus is to rebuild our infrastructure, most of which will not have an economic impact for many years. Needed, yes but economic stimulus, No. He further advocates governmental mandates and controls, ballooning the deficit by over $1 trillion. To quote Barack (again paraphrasing), this isn't a time to worry about the deficit. He believes we can spend our way clear - what if we did that in our own households. Principles are principles, be they our personal budgets or governmental budgets. Nancy Pelosi's solution to needed economic stimulus is to have the government advocate and distribute contraception and birth control. To solve our economic ills, she wants our population and nation to contract. For anyone interested in population contraction, look to the demography of Europe and Canada, all of whom are not reproducing their population, and then compare that with the explosive demography and population of the Islamic nations which is exporting its population to compensate for the shrinking European populations. Mark Steyn has an interesting read in "America Alone."

All of these points are compounded and reflected in the quote by James Madison, ""The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

To the Honorable James Madison, "thank you."

The unfortunate state of politics in the US can best be summed up by an experience I had years ago on the steps of the National Archives. After viewing the US Constitution, I walked to the entry of the National Archives and gazed upon the depth and breadth of Washington, DC. From 3 divinely inspired pages of the Constitution we have amassed a governmental bureaucracy that boggles the mind. Unfortunately, many of the political leaders of our day and in days past have become consumed more with power or the pursuit of such than purpose and civic responsibility and duty. I am reminded of a divine entreaty that applies metaphorically, "they draw near … with their lips, but their hearts are far …" Although they may have been well intended early on, many have become victims of the political power they aspire to, leaving fundamental and foundational principles aside. The consequence has led to a government that is encumbered with self interest over civic duty, power over principle - Democrat or Republican. It isn't fair to generalize, but the shoe seems to fit in most cases. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans in this paradigm (again a generalization, but applicable), is that the Democratic Party believes it is the government's responsibility and duty, as they are the most capable, to solve the ills of our nation, states and families, whereas the Republicans believe that government has a limited role in our Federalist society and puts the responsibility on individuals. Both parties have some valid points where certain individuals or entities have failed in their duty and taken undue advantage, and of course, we all know that the government is not the most effective or efficient in its course. Just because certain individuals have failed to do what is right, it doesn't entitle the government to take on the burden - better that we motivate individual responsibility rather than stifle it by deferring to Washington. I was undone when I read this morning a proposal by certain advisors to President Obama, that we should just nationalize the US banking system and disenfranchise all shareholders, for the sake of order - can you imagine? The failings of a few doesn’t justify governmental takeovers and disenfranchisement. We could have a long dialog alone on this issue and TARP.

Sorry for the tangential rant. In any event, the divinely inspired structure of our government has established the checks and balances of the 3 branches that govern our nation. When the checks and balances are compromised in one party's control of 2 branches, as citizens, we typically lose, be it Democrat or Republican. This because of the point made above of power over principle. We especially lose, if we are right leaning, when Democrats control 2 branches because we end up with a larger government with greater intervention and more entitlements. If we are left leaning, we still lose, but not to the same degree because in theory, government shouldn't expand under Republican principles. Although, under our recent "Republican" leadership (and I don't mean Bush), we all lost because of the power over principle paradigm with our Republican legislators run amok. This should stir the pot - George Bush will likely go down as one of our better Presidents (not that he hasn't made a few mistakes). That being said, if ever there was a concern for the compromise in our checks and balances, it is today. We are without in our ability to stave off the judicial appointments that will further undermine our Constitution, reverting to the traditional British model that the state is the master and the citizen the servant thereof. We will no longer be governed for the people and by the people. We are without in our ability to return to fiscal responsibility (not that anyone has done it right in either party these past 20 years). We are without in our ability to prevent a majority in our nation from being taken off of the tax rolls, and the relegation of the tax burdens on the few. When the many outnumber the few on our tax roles, we are left with an elected government that will appease the entitled with government privilege at the expense of those who bear the sole burden. People generally vote their pocket books over principle and when the majority is on the government payroll (literally and figuratively), they vote for the perpetuation of what serves their needs and wants. I could go on, but won't.

If ever there was a time to step back and set things right, it is today! Honestly, Nancy, Harry and Barack scare me when they are one in their designs, which will take us well down a slippery slope. Sorry, I respect Barack Obama as a good person in today's society, he just believes wrong. He is a product of an entitled society and will govern accordingly. Nancy Pelosi scares me beyond reason and is not one that I would even entrust with $1 (we could write a book on this one). Can you imagine, Nancy Pelosi as one of our leaders - elected by a few so liberal in the Bay area, scary. And then, Brother Reid. When will he realize that he is simply a pawn of the Washington power mongers - I honestly have to question his capacity.

Sorry for the pent up blog, but it has been awhile. They will now come more regularly.

Congratulations to President-elect Obama

2008-11-27T00:31:00.000-08:00

Gratefully, President-elect Obama seems to have realized that to govern our great nation, he must do so from the center and not from the extreme left. Let's hope his selection of economic advisors is a precursor to what we might expect in other critical areas. To this end, he is to be congratulated. But before we get too far down the road, even if he governs from the center we will have our challenges. The cautionery thoughts arise when we look at what is staring back at us economically, fiscally, and socially. It isn't a pretty sight and any tendancy to move away from conservative economic principles, free market policies, principles of freedom and liberty upon which our nation was founded, and traditional family-centric social values, is another step closer to the demise of that which matters; a nation governed by the people, grounded in natural and moral law, and where the government is subordinate to the people. Our national budgets have only been worth the paper they are written on, which isn't much. We risk our nation with each step of more government largesse and intercession. Enough!

Mitt, our lonely eyes turn to you. Mitt's proposed course for the Big 3 domestic automakers is spot on, as is his suggested role for government in this crisis. May his wisdom prevail upon the hearts of the policy makers! It comes down to understanding the natural constants and principles that are unchangeable within our respective society, be it business, legislative, executive, communty, family and self, and living within the bounds thereof. Our capacity to do whatever is required is magnified when we abide by and apply these constants and/or principles.

Notwithstanding, may each of you enjoy a wonderful and fulfilling Thanksgiving. We are off on holiday for the next couple of weeks and look forward to future dialong.

Happy Thanksgiving!

And So It Begins...

2008-11-10T06:54:00.000-08:00

President-elect Obama's transition and policy teams are hard at work for America and the world. Already intimated, some of his first actions will be to repudiate the Bush Policy on USAID funds for family planning and global aid policies (see here). Rather than adhere to the moral standard of abstinence, President-elect Obama is sharing condoms with the world and abandoning Bush's policy of education and abstinence to qualify for USAID funding. On the Homeland Security front, President-elect Obama and his policy advisors are planning to transport the Gitmo detainees, many of whom are violent enemies of the US, to the US (our free land) for criminal trials (see here). I wonder who will represent them in our legal system? And with many federal judicial appointments in the offing, let's pray for the health of our judiciary. It hasn't even been a week and we are beginning to see the course of the next four years. I suppose that we shouldn't be surprised!

Hold on, as we slip down the slippery slope of undermining the moral fiber of our nation, the family and marriage; and then, the weakening of our homeland security, our military, and our freedoms for the sake of appeasement to the "entitled society." Let's hope his economic advisors exercise reason and market principles in seeking to restore our nation's economic health.

Although trying to remain without cynism, it is difficult. With Gordon Brown calling on the US (Barack Obama) to join with him and building a "Global Society," I am sincerely worried that we will become as Europe is, socially and economically. Not a pleasant thought! We are in for tough times as the will of the American electorate has chosen our course of Change!

Ponderables of Democracy

2008-11-09T19:18:00.000-08:00

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.

During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage

Many can substantiate that the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent (40%) of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

As has been stated, those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. It is not too late for American Democracy. If we know the path we are on and the direction we are going, we can alter our course and return to fundamentals that will sustain our nation.

Commentary on Politics Today

2008-11-07T20:54:00.000-08:00

It was expected that the divisive fallout from the Proposition 8 campaign would continue, both litigation and protests. Even so, it is a sad commentary on our political society when those whose positions were not validated by the majority seek to undermine the will of the people; either through litigation or malicious protest. As to litigation, the arguments proffered seek to recognize the privilege and sanctity of marriage as a constitutional civil right, when in fact it is not. The courts will be hard pressed to invalidate the will of the people on this matter. With respect to malicious protests targeted to the LDS Church, I am utterly amazed that there isn't a greater public outcry. If such were targeted to the Jewish community, the Catholics, the Muslims and others, the public outcry would be overwhelming. This malicious attempt to malign, intimidate and disenfranchise a religion is un-American and reflective of the bigoted and intolerant (disrespectful) attitudes of the same gender attraction community. Their proposed boycott of Utah and the Sundance Film Festival, and protests at the sacred edifices of the LDS Church are sad reflections on a community and are doing more harm to the same gender attraction community than anything else. Let the negative public perceptions from their actions condemn them accordingly. The first Prophet for the LDS Church penned the following when asked to address the tenants of the Church, which has great application in our current environs - "the Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done." (The Wentworth Letter)

As to Barack Obama, again, he is our President-elect and to be respected, as is the will of the people in electing him. Yes, we will hold him, Joe Biden and our Congressional Houses accountable, and do so with respect. That being said, Mitt Romney has offered some great and reasoned insight in his interview in Fortune Magazine (HERE). If only...

Text of interview, if you choose not to hyperlink to Fortune:

Romney: Obama must be 'educator-in-chief'

Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney offers his advice to Barack Obama, and his views on labor unions, federal bailouts, Detroit, protectionism, and America's debts.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and co-founder of private equity firm Bain Capital, is often mentioned as a GOP contender for 2012. He spoke with Fortune's Jia Lynn Yang.

Any management advice for the next president? How does he rally a depressed nation to meet the challenges we face?

He should forget entirely about reelection and focus solely on helping the nation at a critical time. He should dismiss the people who helped him win the election and bring in people who are above politics and above party. He should surround himself with statesmen and economists, businesspeople and leaders. In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term. That way the President would think about his legacy and the future of the country rather than reelection and partisanship.

How likely do you think that's going to happen?

In his second term, President Clinton made an effort to govern more from the center than from the extreme wing of his party, and by doing so, found greater support and greater political success. Perhaps it's a paradox, the less political the agenda, the more political success one enjoys. But now is not the time for partisanship opportunism.

The unions have helped Barack Obama. They will hope to be paid back. I'm particularly concerned that organized labor would call on Barack Obama to pass the card check program. This removes from American workers the right to the secret ballot in deciding whether or not to accept a union. This legislation would do more to harm America's long-term competitiveness than almost anything I can imagine. It would be a partisan payback for organized labor but it would come with devastating consequences for the nation.

Do you have any concerns that the massive government intervention on Wall Street will have unintended consequences?

"The bailout of Wall Street" was a terrible choice of words. No one wants to bail out anything, especially Wall Street. The objective of the legislation, however, had a much broader purpose: to stabilize our financial system, to keep it from complete collapse. Sometimes that broad purpose may require saving individual companies, as with AIG (AIG, Fortune 500). But we just can't have government running around the nation looking to bail out companies in trouble.

Given your Michigan roots and what your father accomplished turning around the American Motors Corporation in the 1950s, what do you think is the future of the auto industry?

Right now, the auto industry is on life support, and its prospects look extremely dim. But they don't need to be. The industry could be turned around. There is no inherent reason why America can't build and sell cars to Americans at least as well as the transplants are doing. Any effort to help the auto industry has to be made as part of a comprehensive strategy. Before the government issues loans to the auto industry, as has been authorized by Congress, it should insist on seeing credible and independent strategies that will return the companies to long-term sustainability. Government should not finance ongoing losses and declining market shares.

What concerns you the most about the economy right now? Any dangers lurking in the global economy that we didn't hear much about during the campaigns?

Far too little attention was paid to America's long-term competitive position during the campaign. I see four major economic strategies at play in the world today: the first is ours. It combines freedom and free enterprise.

The second is China's. It combines free enterprise with authoritarianism.

The third is Russia's. No longer is Russia's plan for dominance based upon industrial capacity but rather upon controlling energy throughout the world. Hence Russia's cozy relationship with Iran and Venezuela as well as its belligerent entry into Georgia. Russia's strategy is based on energy and authoritarianism.

The fourth strategy is represented by radical violent jihad. The intent of the jihadists is to cause the collapse of the other three, such that the "hidden Imam" or the Caliphate remains the last man standing.

The real challenge for America is how to strengthen our competitive position so that our economy outperforms those of the other three. If we're successful, freedom will be preserved for the world. If we're unsuccessful, the results are unthinkable.

When you talk about making America more competitive, what do you have in mind?

First, America must substantially improve our education system. We've fallen behind, particularly in areas of math and science.

Second, we're going to have to remedy our disproportionate health care cost disadvantage. America spends far more than any other nation as a percent of GDP on health care. This effectively is an enormous tax on the economy and on our businesses.

Third, our national debt is excessive and our entitlement obligations pass a massive burden onto the next generation.

Fourth, tax and regulatory policies weigh down our ability to compete. Specifically, our products carry an embedded tax which makes American goods less competitive abroad and at home.

Fifth, America's apparent retrenchment from the concept of open, free and fair trade could put us further behind other nations that are aggressively seeking trade relations around the world.

Sixth, our lack of an effective energy policy drains our economy by approximately half a trillion dollars a year.

And, finally, the blow that Wall Street has taken may make us less competitive in financing entrepreneurship.

There's strong populist sentiment against free trade deals. Given that, how does an American president move forward on this?

I can only hope the President abandons the populist current, which seems to be growing in our country. An effort to block foreign trade will only hurt America. Ultimately products in this country would become uncompetitive. Look what happened to the Soviet Union. Its cars, its watches, its goods became a joke.

The only way to remain the leading economy in the world is to be successful on a level playing field around the world. Some individuals, at the behest of special interests, seek to prevent trade with other nations by imposing America's labor requirements and other peculiarities. That is a disguised form of protectionism.

Do Americans need to save more and adjust to a lower standard of living? In other words, should be buying houses we can actually afford?

I think a President has to be an educator- in-chief as well as a commander-in-chief. The American people need to understand the challenges we face. And the American people need to understand that they, like the nation, need to live within their means. Both have been spending more than they have been taking in. It puts the nation at risk. And it puts families at risk.

There's a period of adjustment that's occurring right now as American families deleverage and employers deleverage. It's time for the government to finally address our severe debt burden, before it leads to even more severe consequences. I'm referring not only to our annual deficit and national debt but also to our obligations under entitlement programs like Social Security.

Done, what next?

2008-11-05T12:34:00.000-08:00

It seems that those in the know have called the Proposition 8 election for the Yes vote. Finally. What next? Apparently, Gloria Allred has stated she will file suit in protest of the passage of Proposition 8 using a different argument than what she used in the last legal suit that caused the California Supreme Court to approve same sex marriages. We will eventually pass through this period of denial by those opposed to Proposition 8, but the courts will be hard pressed to act contrary to the will of the people, again. The opposition may well seek to ballot the issue again. As noted previously, we need to find a common ground of understanding. Patience and perseverance.

Hats off to Barack Obama for running an amazing campaign - it speaks to great organizational and inspirational skill sets and capacities. He has accomplished and met an amazing measure. He will be our 44th President and is to be congratulated and respected. Even so, it doesn't change the fact that we are in for a ride and will suffer the consequences foretold. Our nation will be more diluted in the world, we may well suffer on several fronts from a weakend and diluted military, the war on terror will be more difficult, our economy will continue to slide and suffer with a plan of wealth re-distribution and taxation, our health care system will suffer from further government intervention, the entitlement programs will expand, our judicial system will step further on the slippery slope of secularism and subordination of our freedoms and liberties, climate change (global warming) will rise to the top, and on and on. Yes, it will be the Carter years, again, only more expansive and expensive. It is not a pleasant prospect, but there will always be Hope, and of course Change! Once the euphoria wears thin, reality will set in.

And so it begins...

We will persist in fighting the good fight, hopefully in our continued striving to overcome the contrary social winds and disturbing policies of our newly minted administration and liberal Congress. We will continue to raise the issues and hold Barack, Harry and Nancy accountable. We will seek to rebuild and re-energize the Republican Party. And we will look to the mid-terms in 2010 and the Presidential election in 2012. We will lay foundations to take back the country and redirect what comes in the next 4 years to the center-right nation that we are (at least I hope we are). We will prepare a fertile ground for Mitt's next run by building grass roots networks nation wide through The Eagle Foundation. We will seek to elevate the political discourse from the bigotry of 2007-2008 to experience and capacity (no more Mike Huckabee bigotry, hopefully). We have a lot to accomplish! As the calls for help and support go out, please stand with us. We begin in earnest January 2009 - Go Mitt. If there is every a time we will need you it is 2012. Stay close.

Thanks again to all who have been so supportive and involved in Mitt's campaign and in the successful passage of Proposition 8. Thanks for your political activism and for caring. We live in the greatest nation on the earth and can sustain amazing transitions, thankfully.

Prop 8 - Still Close But Leading

2008-11-05T05:20:00.000-08:00

With 92.3% of the vote in, Yes on Prop 8 is leading 51.9% to 48.1%. Still holding; a 3.8% margin is still sufficient to weather the uncounted votes. What is an interesting view is to see the county by county breakdown, see here. A predictable dissection of the State demographics. With critical wins in Florida and Arizona, and a likely and hoped for win in California, perhaps we can begin to heal the wounds that became very evident in this campaign. To do so we need to find open and honest common ground for the arguments, without the unbridled passions that tend to inflame and cloud the issues. We need to better communicate the real substance of the issue at hand and the likely compromises to our freedoms if we succumb to temptation to adopt the civil rights argument. As much as we would hope, it will not likely end here. The unfortunate and bitter divisiveness arising from the opposition to Proposition 8 is of serious concern. Many is this election were confused and I believe the vote would have been stronger in favor of Proposition 8 had the extremes in the opposition not clouded the issue as they did.

In an effort to legitimize lifestyle, the extremes in the No on 8 campaign found a thread to bring others to their side, which will bode for more challenges going forward. To consider the same gender attraction issue as a "civil rights" issue is a flawed and veiled argument proffered by the extremes in that society. Sexual preference or lifestyle is not a civil rights issue. It was revealed what was really at the heart of this argument by the extremes, as illustrated in a recent debate on Prop 8 at Chapman University. When challenged by a sociologist on why the same gender attraction community sought for marriage, a covenant of fidelity, when in fact it is accepted that 25% of the same gender attraction community have 100 or less sexual partners, leaving 75% with 100 or more? The response was stated was shocking because of the public protestation. It was stated by an advocate for same sex marriage, "the problem in our society is that we deem promiscuity as immoral, a perception that needs to be changed." Whether heterosexual or homosexual, promiscuity is not moral to any degree. To the fringe, this hasn't been as much about marriage as it has about legitimization and societal acceptance and validation of an immoral lifestyle under the veil of civil rights. The concerns are evident in this destructive effort to diminish the sanctity of marriage for the sake of alternate lifestyles, alter the educational landscape of our children by numbing them to the extremes, and subordinate religious freedom, each of which sets us on an irreconcilable course. To heal the wounds and resolve the conflict we need to have an honest dialog without the proffering of the extremes. We need to honestly and openly discuss the agenda's at hand. As much as we might hope for such, I doubt we will come to a meeting of the minds. Even so, hope demands that we try. The alternative is not pretty.

The broader argument remains and change demands that we stray from our current societal trends of entitlement; I am entitled to do and have whatever I will. We pay a price and are accountable in all things! Unfortunately, we are trending in society to a day when those without and who advocate entitlement are greater in number than those who have to ultimately pay the price.

Prop 8 Updated

2008-11-04T22:43:00.000-08:00

With 33.1% in, Yes on 8 is up 52.5% to 47.5% (a margin of 5%). Although tight, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, Ventura County, Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County, each of which are strong supporters of the Yes vote with large populations have only reported 10.6%, 28.6%, 48.6%, 39.4%, 16.2% and 18.5%, respectively. I don't expect a call on the vote until tomorrow, which should be in our favor. Good night!

Prop 8 Race is Tightening - Still Good Margins

2008-11-04T22:11:00.000-08:00

27.9% of the vote is in and the Yes vote is leading by a margin of 52.4% to 47.6% (margin 4.8%). The race is tightening and it will continue to be close - in the end, we should eek out a victory for traditional marriage.

Prop 8 Update

2008-11-04T21:50:00.000-08:00

With 23.5% of the vote in, Yes on Prop 8 is leading 54.9% to 45.1%.

Following Prop 8 Results - HOPE

2008-11-04T20:37:00.000-08:00

If you are anxious about the Prop 8 vote in California, the Secretary of State is updating the vote count on a timely basis, here. With 11% in the Yes vote is up 55.8% to 44.2%. Traditional Marriage may well win big tonight in Florida, Arizona and California, thankfully!

Hope Remains - Nation, California, Arizona and Florida

2008-11-04T20:23:00.000-08:00

In spite of the disappointments of the evening - we are a nation that advocates freedom, hope and liberty! May our sincere prayers be with those elected to lead! And, may we as a nation stand firm on eternal principles and hold those who lead us accountable. Let's hope and pray for the best!

With regard to the hope in preserving traditional marriage - hope remains!
In Arizona, the current vote shows traditional marriage leading 56% to 43%
In Florida, traditional marriage needed a 60% majority and the current vote count is 62% to 38%
In California we have hope, with 9.5% in Prop 8 is leading is 53% to 47% ( it will be a nail biter)

A Difficult and Defining Moment

2008-11-04T18:22:00.000-08:00

With Ohio having gone to Obama, it is nigh unto impossible for McCain to pull of his come from behind victory. It is time for reconciliation as challenging as it may be - all hail the reign of King Obama. We are facing some difficult times ahead, not only economically, but socially. Sensing what is on the horizon in his glorious reign, our only hope is that America comes to its senses by 2012. Hopefully, America turns it lonely eyes to Mitt Romney!

After three years of active involvement both in front and behind the scenes, and as enlightening as this experience has been, it has born its share of frustrations. Our nation has failed in its sifting of Presidential candidates. Neither Obama or McCain reflected the best of our nation; as stated before, the lesser of two evils. In this Presidential election, whether Democrat or Republican, it was always about the personal interests and egos of Barack and McCain. As much as John McCain proffered Country First, it has always been about John McCain; and Barack is no different. Even so, in spite of honoring John McCain for his service to our nation, he has been one of the more flawed candidates to run from the Republican Party, by his own acknowledgement of his ignorance about the economy. And this was an economic election! His campaign has been a travesty for the nation and the Republican Party. Yes, it has been a difficult climate for the Republican Party given the squandering of opportunity by the Republican members of the House and Senate, and the Executive Branch. Notwithstanding this climate, John McCain's poor campaign management, strategic judgments and opportunistic decisions without substance, has born the consequences - America has lost. The thought of Barack, Harry and Nancy without imbedded checks and balances, oh my!

It now demands our hunkering down, and continuing to stand for what is right. Now is the time to hold the Democrats accountable, a frightening thought. In spite of accountability, we will suffer significant economic consequence and even greater social consequence! May we hold fast in our homes to what is right.

Time to work for 2010 and 2012!

The consolation this night is the hope for the passage of Proposition 8 in California and the resolve of the nation to not let Barack, Harry and Nancy undermine families and marriage. May we stand firm on retaining the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress!

Proposition 8 - Discrimination? A Great Closing Argument

2008-11-03T13:23:00.000-08:00

Hugh Hewitt has posted the closing argument for Proposition 8 by John Mark Reynolds. Thank you Hugh and John Mark Reynolds.

Proposition 8 - A Sensitive and Thoughtful Perspective

2008-11-02T21:07:00.000-08:00

A very dear friend of mine sent a personal email to his friends explaining, with personal insight and sensitivity, why he is supporting Proposition 8. With his permission, I publish the text of the email below. Thank you Steve for your thoughts, your advocacy and the loving manner that you have addressed what has become a very volatile and heated debate.

Dear Family and Friends,

As many of you know, I have been involved in the California Proposition to re-establish the definition of Marriage between one man and one woman. This issue was overwhelmingly supported in 2000 with Prop 22, which passed by 61%. Last year 4 activist Judges overturned the will of the people and legalized same sex marriage. My original involvement came in response to a request from my ecclesiastical leaders to do everything within our power to support Prop 8. These kinds of requests rarely come, I responded by supporting people I have come to trust and respect.

At first, I did not fully understanding all of the issues related to proposition 8. The subject of homosexuality is a sensitive one and comes very close to home for me. I have many wonderful employees, co-workers, friends, and family who live this lifestyle. I have deep respect for many of them, their hard work, exceptional talent, their kindness and empathy for others, and the courage it must take to live their lives. One of the most important beliefs we have and have tried to teach our children is to treat everyone with respect. We feel it a great blessing that at least this one lesson was learned by each of them. I would also say that I generally believe in the philosophy of live and let live. There are many issues on many levels that Prop 8 deals with. Disagreements on these issues have unfortunately caused many hurt feelings, strained friendships and damaged relationships.

My close involvement has given me a very clear view of both sides. I have been able to study the issues in such a way as to see things as I believe they really are. I have been able to see the people and motivation of both sides. For me, it is all about children. If you know me, you know that I am Baby Crazy. I have been all my life, and now with grandchildren it has joyfully started all over again.

Prop 8 at its core, is not about the rights of same sex couples or discrimination. These incendiary issues are what have been used by extreme activists to disguise their true motive. They have been very divisive and very successful in their actions. So divisive that I wonder if things will ever be the same again. Unfortunately, it is evident that the agenda for same sex issues have been led by a FEW EXTREMISTS. These few, demand the status of a third gender or new race. The true goal of these few extremists is to indoctrinate, confuse, and eventually lead away our purest and most precious minds and souls, at their most impressionable age. It has been shamefully stated publicly by government and education leaders that this claim is simply ridiculous. The actions however of these FEW extremists are louder than the words of their carefully scripted, heterosexual spokespeople. Make no mistake about the smoke screen of issues and crafted confusion of their message. Their goal is to raise a Godless, genderless generation that looks at God and his teachings as bigotry. These children will be taught in the perfect moments of their lives that homosexuality, transgender, and bisexuality are normal and natural behavior. They will also be taught to NOT TOLERATE those that believe otherwise. At some point in their lives, they will face a situation or be encouraged to make a decision of who and what they are going to be when they grow up. For me in the 60's, it was a fireman or a construction worker. For them it will be gay or straight. They will have been taught over and over that either choice is OK and will carry NO consequences. This is a lie, There ARE very serious consequences to such decisions not only for individuals but family's and Nations.

I personally believe that parents have the rights and obligations to teach their children moral and social, behaviors and beliefs. If Prop 8 fails, parents will lose such freedom. Just during the past month of this campaign my point has been proven over and over. There have been ongoing events aimed at precious children in California schools. I have attached a link to just one of the latest examples of showing their hand as to the core issue of Prop 8. Note that this is a kindergarten class being subjected to concepts and commitments that I never dreamed possible. My hope is that we will be a blessing in the lives of our children and grandchildren. I hope we can all move forward after this ugly time and not be permanently scarred by the divisive confusion of issues perpetuated by the FEW

click here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html

Sincerely,

Steve S

Oh Really? Barack Doesn't Get It and Doesn't Understand!

2008-10-31T15:02:00.001-07:00

Are we in trouble or what? It doesn't take long, but Barack obviously doesn't seem to understand the important role of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that preceded it!

Barack Obama - Insights into the Mind and Philosophies of Obama

2008-10-29T09:24:00.000-07:00

I am not sure why the writings of Obama have not been sufficiently vetted in the media. In or out of context, the quotes are disconcerting. If you were to add up all that the MSM brushes aside - associations, statements made, philosphies espoused, etc., it is distressing how one so inexperienced and whose beliefs are so contrary to the founding principles of our nation can hold our nation captive. Are we so blinded by the challenges we face in our nation, so caught up in ourselves and the entitled society that we have become snared in the "flaxen cord" flatteries of one so extreme?

Quotes from the writings of Barack Obama.

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Obama and Marxism?

2008-10-28T20:24:00.000-07:00

Bill Sammon provides a fair report on the point (see below). Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has done a masterful job in hiding who he really is, excepting for those willing to search deeply into his pre-POTUS pursuit. The Main Stream Media has been so taken that they have failed the nation to vet, with integrity, the man running for President, Barack Obama. His writings are a reflection of the teachings of Karl Marx and the truth will ultimately come out - let's just hope it is before November 4th. The influential teachings of our mentors from college and elsewhere do take hold - and so they have with Barack. There is an underlying veil, with deep rooted philosphies, in Barack's populist message and his interest in redistribution. America needs to be cautious in today's political season. More to come.

Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days
Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem.

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

Obama has been widely criticized for choosing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American firebrand, as his pastor. Wright is a purveyor of black liberation theology, which analysts say is based in part on Marxist ideas.

Few political observers go so far as to accuse Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, of being a Marxist. But Republican John McCain has been accusing Obama of espousing socialism ever since the Democrat told an Ohio plumber named Joe earlier this month that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's running mate, Biden, recently contradicted his boss, saying: "He is not spreading the wealth around." The remark came as Biden was answering a question from a TV anchor who asked: "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

"Are you joking? Is this a joke? Or is that a real question?" an incredulous Biden shot back. "It's a ridiculous comparison."

But the debate intensified Monday with the surfacing of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama lamented the Supreme Court's inability to enact "redistribution of wealth" -- a key tenet of socialism. On Tuesday, McCain said Obama aspires to become "Redistributionist-in-Chief."

Obama has managed to cultivate the image of a political moderate in spite of his consistently liberal voting record. In 2006, he published a second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope," that leaves little doubt about his adherence to the left.

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," Obama wrote in "Audacity." "Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal."

National Journal magazine ranked Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. The publication is far from conservative, employing such journalists as Linda Douglass, who resigned in May to become Obama's traveling press secretary.

Bill Sammon is the Washington deputy managing editor for FOX News Channel.

You Decide Where Deception Lies!

2008-10-27T07:49:00.000-07:00

Who should we listen to - factual accounts or misleading and deceptive ads?

Yes on Prop 8 has factual support for the impact of Same-Sex Marriage on California's education.

Massachusetts is dealing with it as well.

The No on Prop 8 Campaign's misleading ad.

Nothing More Need Be Said!

2008-10-24T07:09:00.000-07:00

California's Proposition 8: Open Season on Mormons?

2008-10-21T20:51:00.000-07:00

from Article VI Blog by Lowell Brown

Does that sound like an exaggeration? Read on. If you’re like me, you’ll be amazed and disgusted at the attacks on people of faith who are only expressing their religious consciences through the ballot process, and are doing so in the most all-American ways: Grassroots organizing and small financial donations.

The LDS Church and Proposition 8

According to the 2007-2008 Almanac of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”) there are about 770,000 Church members in California. In a letter dated June 29, 2008, the Church’s leaders asked members to “do all [they] can to support [California’s Proposition 8] by donating of [their] means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.”

Proposition 8 would enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the State Constitution. Traditional marriage had been the only kind recognized in California since 2000, when another statewide ballot initiative passed with 61% of the vote. In May 2008, however, by a 4-3 vote, the California Supreme Court held Prop 22 unconstitutional, thus opening the door to same-sex marriage in the Golden State.

By amending the Constitution, Prop 8’s supporters hope, once and for all, to settle the issue in California. A coalition of religious groups, including all the Catholic Bishops in California, virtually all the Evangelical churches, the Orthodox Rabbis, and many others, are supporting Prop 8 with manpower and financial donations from their members. The Mormons, however, are most visible because of their geographic distribution and lay ministry, which lend themselves very well to grassroots organizing.

Unfortunately, Prop 8’s opponents, having achieved through the courts what they could never have achieved by the ballot box, have now chosen to attack not the ballot proposition, but its supporters. And because California Mormons have been so prominent in the “Yes On 8″ campaign, they have become the chief target. Here’s a report on some ways in which that personalized opposition has manifest itself.

Smearing Prop 8 Donors Because They Are . . . Mormons?

Maggie Gallagher at National Review Online points us to this Daily Kos post, which she calls “disgusting.” (I must agree.) Here’s the key excerpt:

[T]he No on Prop 8 folks told me recently that the “Protect Marriage” campaign has raised $30 million dollars–over half of it from the Mormon Church. Now, I have nothing personally against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. . . .

But when the church and its members invest millions of dollars in an attempt to write discrimination into my state’s constitution . . . there will be hell to pay.

So what am I asking you to do?

Some distributed research.

There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here’s a mirror with slightly worse formatting.

Here’s what I’m asking for:

This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign–donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars. And, as you can see, there are a lot of them. It also indicates if they’re Mormon or not.

If you’re interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here’s how you can help:

Find us some ammo.

Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal. Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to…shall we say…less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious. If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity.

There are a crapload of donors on this list–so please focus on the larger ones first. $5,000 or more is a good threshold to start with.

Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using “morality” as their primary motivation to support Prop 8…if you find anything that belies that in any way…well, you know what to do.

If you find anything good, please email it . . . .

Here’s the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny–because I, for one, won’t take it lying down.

Translation: If you are a Mormon and you donate to Prop 8, thousands of strangers will try to smear you, in the hope of intimidating you and others into not exercising your right to freedom of speech.

In other words, they want to silence you.

I wonder what level of care and caution the “distributed researchers” will apply to their efforts? Will they be sure that any embarrassing information they find about Mormon donors is accurate? Don’t bet the farm on that one, folks.

And About That Web Site that Makes This Possible

In his exhortations to smear and embarrass Mormon donors to Prop 8, the Daily Kos post relies heavily on a web site that is deceptively named “Mormons for Proposition 8.” The casual reader might think the site favors Prop 8, but he would be wrong.

This is a site, run by members of the Church who oppose Prop 8 and who are unhappy about the Church’s support for the ballot measure. The site’s purpose? Identifying members of the Church who have donated to Prop 8 by posting the names of all donors to Yes On 8 and asking readers to identify those who are Mormons.

In what I consider a monument to sophistry, the site’s sponsors have claimed it is “neutral.” That would be funny if it were not such an outrageous lie. Just review the site for 2 or three minutes and decide for yourself whether that is true. While you’re at it, look at the “FAQ” page and ask yourself if the answers given are sincere, or disingenuous and downright snide.

(By the way, I donated $1,000 to Yes On 8, and although some helpful soul has identified me on this list as a Mormon, I see lots of individuals on the list whom I know to be members of the Church, but who haven’t been identified yet. Obviously, the site’s readers need to work harder.)

A lawyer friend e-mailed the site’s sponsors:

Disclosure of religious association is a matter of constitutional protection and a privilege held by the congregant against disclosure. (Church of Hakeem v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. App. 3d 184 (1980)). Your forced outing to intimidate others would be a violation of civil rights if committed with the color of authority. That you are private and anonymous doesn’t make what you are doing any more commendable.

Make no mistake: These people want to shine the spotlight on Mormons who donate to Yes On 8. By doing so, they hope to discourage Mormons from donating by exposing them to smear efforts like those urged by the Daily Kos.

In other words, these people are just like the Daily Kos writer: They no doubt consider themselves very progressive, but nevertheless want to silence their opponents in the public square.

That sounds an awful lot like this political system.

Harassing Members of A Church - Because of Their Membership

Apart from those repulsive efforts, how else is the opposition to Prop 8 playing out in the lives of ordinary Mormons? Well, here’s a story you won’t read about in the mainstream news media. I received it in a private e-mail:

This weekend we have stake conference. [Ed.: A “stake” is a geographic unit of LDS congregations, and is the rough equivalent of a Catholic diocese.] Our stake conference always begins with a stake temple session on Friday or Thursday night. Early Friday morning I received a call from the second counselor in our bishopric to let me know that there would be numerous protesters outside the temple, and to remind everyone to stay calm and to drive carefully. The beautiful Oakland Temple is located right across the bay from San Francisco, very close to the city of Berkeley. Apparently the opposition to proposition 8, the amendment that seeks to make marriage in CA between a man and a woman again, has realized the deep involvement of the [LDS] church and begun to protest right outside of the temple and harass temple patrons. The fastest way to get to the temple from our house is to take the 680 freeway, but the exit is a bit tricky. The off ramp is extremely short and straight uphill. You then make an almost blind left turn, an immediate right and another left into the parking lot.

As we approached the off ramp, I realized there would be trouble. There was a backup onto the freeway from cars stalled on the off ramp. As we moved forward inches at a time, we realized this was due to a large group of loud protesters who were standing on both sides of the street, yelling, screaming and waving signs. When we got to the top of the offramp, ready to make our turn, one protester jumped out right in front of our car. It took my husband all his self control to carefully maneuver around him to the left and proceed to the temple. I tried not to listen to all they were shouting at us, but I was shaking as I got to the temple front door.

Several of the sisters, especially the ones driving on their own, were crying . . . .

Another e-mail correspondent tells me the Oakland police did not respond to requests for help.

Keep in mind: Not everyone in the Church is active in opposing Prop 8. There is no way the Prop 8 protesters at the Oakland temple knew whether or not the members they were harassing had anything to do with the Church’s efforts in support of the measure. They were harassing those people simply because they were Mormons.

As one of our readers notes, “It is more than a little frightening how much the Left is so much enamored with the tactic of attacking the messenger rather than engaging the substantive issues.”

Yes, it is.

_____________

Full disclosure: I am a Prop 8 grassroots worker myself. My wife is Deputy Communications Director for the Yes On 8 Campaign. She had no awareness of this post prior to my publishing it, and the views expressed here are my own.

Is there any Hope?

2008-10-21T10:23:00.000-07:00

If one were to look at the state of all things in the US and the world, you would have to ask, "is there any hope?" Amid market turmoil - both capital markets and real estate markets, economic distress, political divisiveness and partisanship, terrorist threats, mediocrity in society with the acceptance and often embrace of secularism, corruption and immorality in our politicians, pride among men driven by selfish interests and excess, the extremes of society seeking to impose adoptive abhorrent behavior upon society and portraying it as good and normal, society's diminutive view of that which is good and righteous - even portraying such as bad, a broken educational system that has adopted society's distance from morality, a judiciary that has strayed from the tenets upon which our nation was founded - moral and natural law, and on and on. Although not a student of history as much as I should be, but with sufficient knowledge of things past, we have been here before. The current ills of society, as much as they are disconcerting to many (or should be), such have been faced by society's past, and to an even greater degree in many cases.

Even so, the question remains, "is there any Hope?" The answer is a resounding, YES! We live as spoken of by Charles Dickens in a Tale of Two Cities, ...it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. We live in a day where all things are abundant, and our capacity to act therein is more of a journey and tutoring process, hence the constancy of corrections and adjustments in society. That being said, we must be grounded in moral principles that become our constants. It is within natural law that when obedient to such principles and constants, our capacity to succeed and thrive is enlarged, with consequential joy therein. Unfortunately, there are many in our society that are not so grounded, and will blow with the winds and situational standards of society. For many in society think that there are shortcuts, or that obedience to such divine governing principles is not for them - that there is a deceptive and alternate short cut. This "flaxen cord" and entitled mindset is a false hope and pursuit therein only leads to sorrow, challenge, trial and tribulation. The course is really quite simple and provides the needed perspective to know what truly matters and what does not - in the end it is not about our selfish indulgence, but in obedience to correct principles born of moral and natural law. The hope for America resides in the majority of Americans who adhere to morality and that which is good, true and constant in their lives. If there was ever a time for the majority to STAND and defend their freedoms and principles born of natural and moral law - IT IS TODAY!

In California today many parents are standing for that which is right. Their children remain home from school to send a message to the extremes in society who have thought they could co-opt the educational system to proffer their liberal agenda. With the California Teacher's Association recent donation of over $1,000,000 to support same sex marriage, they have deluded themselves thinking that the majority are like unto themselves. The irony in their donation to proffer their position on same sex marriage and their delusions, is that they have failed to realize that by proffering such a position and if successful there will be fewer students to teach and the jobs of California teachers will be at risk. For many parents in California will not abide the same sex marriage agenda in education and will opt out, choosing to home school or private school their children.

America is the greatest nation on the earth, born of divine intercession - may we not turn all together therefrom. As we look to the current election, it is my hope in America and in Americans that they will stand for what is right, good and true, and vote with a discernible consciousness for candidates who do not proffer the "flaxen cord" and entitled standards, but for candidates who stand for freedom and moral principles of family, life and liberty. My hope is that Americans won't be swayed by the scripted and marketed messaged (without substance) of Barack Obama and his cronies who espouse destructive standards to life, family and liberty, but that they will see through the flaws of John McCain and his inability to communicate with eloquence and vote for correct, moral and principles that are constant to the founding of our nation. Joe the Plumber is a reaffirming hope to me that there are many like him in America who albeit not perfect but are striving for that which is good, and adhere to the traditions of our fathers. May we all remember upon whom we rely and for what purpose we are here, that we may live and serve accordingly!

Proposition 8 and Why it Matters - California's Ridiculous New Marriage Laws

2008-10-14T22:56:00.000-07:00

Although a serious and critical issue facing voters in California, below is a humorous and enlightening bit on how ridiculous California's New Laws on Marriage have become.

Enjoy, but please take this issue seriously and spread the word. Our nation cannot abide the fallout of California's judicial follies!

Enjoying the Ride? What Now?

2008-10-13T13:04:00.000-07:00

It was the best of times and the worst of times...

Within the political upheavals of the Presidential election, the markets down 800 one day and up 936 the next, where do we find stability and constancy, other than in "change?" With perspective, I believe that the current tumultuous environment simply reflects a lack of confidence, not just in the markets, but more so in the course and direction of our nation and those who are seeking to lead it. We are severely lacking in leadership and confidence in who can and will lead. The cynicism is abundant and the respondent distrust overwhelming. Neither Obama nor McCain have shown the capacity to lead and neither are trusted of any consequence, for both are "simply" politicians whose motivations are suspect. It is a sad commentary that we are relegated to choosing between the two. It is best summed up as politics as usual!

Even so, we have been through similar times in the past and in spite of it all, as Americans we survive and become stronger through the process. So what are we to do now in the midst of such uncertainty? I am troubled with the consequence of an Obama victory born of McCain's subordination of principled judgments to his opportunistic judgments. We live in a center-right nation, and McCain has yet to secure the confidence of the nation's majority. Our nation must look beyond the self-indulgent failings of both candidates and their mutual myopic aspiration for the Presidency and pick which person they feel will best "serve" the interests of the American people. I am convinced that what the nation doesn't know about Obama speaks for itself and a basis for serious distrust. Equally, so what we know about McCain is no less troubling.

Notwithstanding the lesser of two evils, we can only hope for a McCain Presidency. The economic policies of both candidates reflect a troubling populist mindset with little regard for the economic policies that our nation needs. With both, we will likely face a "Carter-type economy." We survived it before and will again. The social policies of Obama are beyond the pale and will set us further down the path of a European-type socialist bent. At least McCain will adhere to American principles of individual rights and preserve the freedoms on which our nation is founded, provided Congress maintains its partisan gridlock. What is tragic is the failing of each candidate to adhere to, and espouse traditional American values and principles. I truly believe that John McCain is a man of principle, he just wants to be President so badly the principles have been subordinated. John McCain, stand resolute and firm - don't play Obama's game, please lead!

Our nation was founded on principles of moral and natural law, where the people govern themselves. We don't need Congress and Obama to weigh in and tell us how to live our lives. We don't need McCain to proffer populist economic policies that redistribute wealth for the sake of vote pandering. If only we had a candidate that would stipulate their principles of governance and leadership, that we might be able to choose a leader that is resolute in correct principles.

Simply put -
1. On economics, adhere to free market principles that encourage global trade, growth and support for small business enterprise. Let the people keep their money with lower taxes - American's know better how to spend the dollar than does Congress. The entreneurial spirit of America has made us the leading economic nation in the world - why would anyone seek to diminish such!

2. On social policies, adhere to principles that strengthen the fundamental unit in society, the family. Let parents govern and manage their households and raise their children, not the schools or Congress. Any social policy that diminishes the family to any whit should be terminated, abandoned and relegated to the trash bin. Preserve the sanctity of marriage as it was set forth by God, and thus preserve the foundation of our nation, the American family. Do not succomb to the pressures of appeasement to societal shifts and extremes.

3. On the judiciary, stand firm for judges that adhere to the Constitution as seen through the Declaration of Indepence, founded on principles of moral and natural law. Do not secularize our judicial system where the people become subordinate.

4. On security, stand firm and resolute in protecting our nation from those who would seek our downfall. Be steadfast and not succomb to passifying the interests of world acclaim. Lead the world in righteousness and do not stand in mediocrity.

5. On religious freedom, do not subordinate God nor those who believe in Him to the interests of the extremes in society that would seek to minimize Him. We are a nation founded by and under His grace.

6. On entitlements, subordinate the demand for more to the principles stated herein. The entitlements in our society are choking us and disabling our capacity to remain the leading economic nation of the world. Socialism doesn't work, Europe proves it! Let us be resolute in realizing the entitlement systems in America are detrimental to our society. Government is the last resort for meeting such needs, not the first!

As complex as things are these days, there are core values, standards and principles whereby our nation has stood as the light of the world. It isn't that hard to do the right thing for the right reason.

All Things In Commotion, Politics, Economy... - Time for Fear and Panic?

2008-10-10T08:11:00.000-07:00

Amid the commotion of all things, "fear" and "panic" seem to prevail at every turn, especially if you read the headlines of every major news purveyor. Even so, "fear" and "panic," albeit the common terms in the headlines today, do nothing but evoke more fear and panic, as if someone was yelling "fire" in a crowded theater as Jim Cramer (CNBC's Mad Money) did the other day. The jitters on Wall Street and Main Street born of our current economic crisis have manifest themselves with some regard to historical perspective, but give little credence to the fundamental strength and underlying principles in our domestic and global economic systems. Without doubt, the markets are in crisis and these truly are difficult times; nearly $8 trillion has been lost in the stock market in the last 12 months, credit is tight, liquidity in the market is nearly gone, the once illustrious GM is on the brink, along with its historically stellar counterparts and many of the blue chips are in the market to shore up capital. Not limited to the US, the tendrils of this crisis are well entrenched in every global economic society as well. Confidence has waned so significantly that the vultures have begun to appear on the horizon, some have proferred the world ending. The beginning of the end. Really?

I was playing golf on Tuesday with a friend from China who is a prominent economic figure in Beijing and a friend of his, one of China's leading economists. When asked the question, how long will this crisis extend, 3 or 4 years? I thought of the intervening of the G7 Central Banks, Treasuries and non G7 economies, and responded, maybe 12-18 months. As much as free markets disdain and loathe intervention, at times it is necessary. I firmly believe that the effort of so many leading economic nations seeking to impose stabilizing factors into their domestic and our global economy, and in a coordinated manner, will have a favorable impact on restoring confidence and stability. That being said, I am uncertain as to what kind of markets will emerge; only time will tell. Even so, the significant efforts of so many will bear sway to calm and perspective. It demands patience, perspective and the capacity to endure (hold on). As challenging as these markets are, the correction will bring about constructive change in the societies that are in turmoil. The markets have seriously hurt and affected many, and will continue to cause consternation, pain and consequence to more in the near term. Many will take the bitter pill, but will be better for it in the end, as will the economies in each nation. Our economy and those of the G7 are built on solid, proven and tested principles. The markets will emerge and confidence restored to a better end, it is not a matter of if, but when. This is a time to act responsibly and not react to, or become consumed by the prevailing panic and fear. These are opportunistic times that bear serious investment consideration and there are sufficient monies in the market just waiting to be deployed. Those who have been wise, with oil in their lamps, will benefit greatly. Those who are without and ill prepared will bear the consequence thereof, and hopefully through the tutoring process will be better off when it is all said and done.

If you can hold on and not jump off of the roller coaster, great; if not, and you must partake of the bitter pill, use this time as a means to a better end in the future. The days of simple reliance on FICO scores and the irresponsible lending by financial institutions without deliberative underwriting are past. For each of us to hold on to the what was, will only bring frustration and consternation. The wake up call that is upon us demands of each to re-evaluate our individual circumstance and act on sound and fundamental economic principles in the future. Unfortunately, our society has become so expecting and reliant upon principles of entitlement and excess, that we have lost our way. At the end of the day, markets and economies continue. Look around and you will see that people still work, companies still exist, people still consume and society continues in their seeming routineness. Notwithstanding, the hyped fear and panic, the sun will rise in the morning and the resilience of man will persevere! Take heart and have hope in a brighter more stable future. Take a breath and realize their is substance in our society and sound principles upon which to rely, and above all have confidence in the fundamentals of our society. Perspective in times of crisis bear greater reward than fear and panic. We have been here before, and will likely be again, so are the economic cycles and swings of markets. At the end of the day, reason and perspective will prevail.

$4,824,561,403.51

2008-09-29T20:56:00.000-07:00

$4,824,561,403.51 ($4.8 billion), that is the price paid for each "no" vote in the House today! And, tomorrow?

1,100,000,000,000.00!!!

2008-09-29T18:26:00.000-07:00

Let me think on this one for a moment, a US Treasury $700,000,000,000.00 investment into assets that will return at least a 50% profit vs a realized loss, not to be recovered by the sellers who are American taxpayers (in one day), of $1,100,000,000,000.00. Who are our congressional (they don't deserve to be capitalized) members kidding. With a likely drop tomorrow near unto today, let's hope they get a clue that they are costing the US taxpayer and the global capital markets beyond measure. I don't care whether you are a Republican or Democrat, if you are concerned about your job or not, or whether you get the credit or the blame, go to work for the people of our nation and do what you are supposed to do - serve the people!!!

Amazing - Throw the Bums Out!

2008-09-29T12:29:00.000-07:00

If there was ever a time for disappointment with those elected to Congress it is now. We all hope that people will do the right things for the right reason, especially those elected by the people to represent us and our interests. Apparently, that isn't the case as evidenced by the statements below.

"I'm not willing to put that bullet in the revolver and spin it. I will take the political risk," said Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

"We're all worried about losing our jobs," said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., before the vote. "Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it -- not me.'

"We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us," he said.

These people in Congress are more worried about their jobs and who is to blame that doing the right thing. While they continue to dither in Washington, the retirement accounts, savings accounts and investments of many Americans suffer. It is the Americans on Main Street that are paying the price for all the dithering in Washington. If our Congressional members are more concerned about losing their jobs, then maybe we should accommodate. Those elected to Congress are there to do the right thing, not the politically expedient thing. I was further amazed, although I shouldn't be, with the harping over the weekend over who deserves the credit, or the blame. Or, have some have proffered, some Democrats and Republicans didn't vote for the Rescue plan because they were offended by Speaker Pelosi's speech (rant). Enough with the Pride in Congress, enough with the partisanship!

Unfortunately, our current state is a sad commentary on those who have been elected to office. Enough is enough! Even so, my points raised in earlier posts stand. We have a strong foundation, compromised currently by constraints on liquidity and lack of confidence. Time and corrections will take their toll, although the price could be minimized with some intelligent thought in Washington. Congress could have helped, and still can, by voting in favor of a measure that instills confidence in the markets. To delay will only require a more robust and higher valued solution later. Anyone who puts their interest above the interests of America should not be serving in Congress.

Warren Buffet Gets It!

2008-09-24T19:30:00.000-07:00

As published in the Guardian, Warren Buffet is spot on. Let's get on with it. Little has been published about the money made by the Treasury on the Chrysler and S&L bailouts. My estimate, between AIG and the $700 billion rescue plan, the US Treasury will make somewhere north of $300 billion, which should make a dent in our deficit, stabilize the markets and restore a much needed confidence.

The Nebraska-based billionaire, whose fortune is estimated at $62bn, threw his weight wholeheartedly behind Henry Paulson's rescue package for Wall Street, arguing that US industry will "grind to a halt" without action.

"Last week, we were at the brink of something that would have made anything that's happened in financial history pale," Buffett told CNBC television. "I'm not saying the Paulson plan will eliminate the problems but it's absolutely necessary, in my view, to avoid going off the precipice."
Buffett, whose opinions are hugely influential among millions of private investors in the US, said that if the Treasury acts shrewdly by buying banks' distressed assets at a competitive price, taxpayers will end up as financial winners.

"I bet they'll make a profit," said Buffett, who pointed out that hedge funds specialising in junk assets were already picking up mortgage-related securities with a view to making profits of 15% to 20%. He said a positive return was feasible if the government ignores the book value of instruments or the original cost to banks and instead pays the prevailing market rates for the bombed out assets.

"They'll pay back the $700bn and make a considerable amount of money if they approach it like that," said Buffett. "I would love to have $700bn at Treasury rates to buy fixed-income securities - there's a lot of money to be made."

Buffett's $5bn investment in Goldman Sachs' preferred stock was matched by a further $5bn capital raising yesterday as the bank took the opportunity to bolster its balance sheet. Goldman's shares, which fell as low as $86 last week, rose by 2% to $127.88 during early trading in New York.

Protect, Save Marriage? An Inflection Point and Defining Moment?

2008-09-23T11:27:00.000-07:00

California is the primary battlefront for freedom and liberty in our society today and it is getting a little ugly. Even so, in the midst of it there are no surprises. Many have read this blog and our advocacy for Proposition 8. Let me be clear, Proposition 8 consists of fourteen (14) words:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

That is it. And yet, many in California are confused, why? There are two forces at play, the Protect Marriage Coalition advocating a YES vote on Proposition 8, and a Save Marriage advocacy group supporting a vote No on Proposition 8. Unfortunately, truth has become a situational standard in our society today. When many speak of truth it is no longer a constant, but a variable changing in the societal winds as they blow to and fro. The battle over Proposition 8 proves the point.

The Save Marriage advocacy that supports a "no" vote, does so by deception, guile and oblique lies (maybe not so oblique) and innuendo. How can they save something that eludes them, when in fact their actions are contrary to marriage as it is known today? How can they save something that they have redefined and fail to understand?

Marriage in California and in our nation has been recognized as that between one man and one woman. It is grounded in religion and tradition through the ages. It is the basis and foundation of our society and many throughout the world, given tenderly of our loving Heavenly Father for the procreation, joy and happiness of man. It has not been defined by the State, but recognized in its original form by the State as a "status." It is not within the State's authority to redefine, but in the people's charge. The same gender attraction community would have us believe otherwise, arguing their disenfranchisement, hence their judicial appeals. The same gender attraction community has gone to the extreme to promote their cause as "saving marriage" when in fact, they seek to redefine and destroy it as it is known today. A vote "no" or against Proposition 8 sets in motion the very dilution and destruction of marriage as we know it in our society, hence the lie perpetrated in their slogan. The subtleties in our society have become the destructive forces that when we look back have wreaked havoc beyond measure.

Our hope is to truly "Protect Marriage" with a Yes vote on Proposition 8, and in doing so, preserve the very familial foundation of our society; to preserve the fundamental religious freedom and liberty upon which our nation was founded. It is interesting to note that in the founding of our nation, born in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that followed, we are a nation established under the purview of our Creator and governed by moral and natural law (of which traditional marriage is fundamental). The unalienable rights established in the Declaration of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are within the bounds of our Creator, even God. The disruptive thought of our nation's founding was in turning our nation from a secular state where the State was the supreme authority served by the people (as in Great Britain under King George), to a moral and natural law state under the fundamental principles of God where the People were the supreme authority served by the State. When we undertake to undermine the freedoms and liberties established at the founding of our nation, wherein we defer to the State (or Judiciary) to legislate and deny the very freedoms and liberties granted, i.e., religious freedom, we become a secular nation where the State becomes the master and the people the servant. The issues rest with the People for determination and not the State, for the State is a protector of the People not a determinant.

Yes, Proposition 8 is an inflection point, even a defining moment in our nation. We must preserve the very principles of freedom at our nation's founding, respecting the rights, privileges and liberties of all, without compromise the fundamental and basic unit of our nation, the family and traditional marriage as it is known between one man and one woman. If we fail to pass Proposition 8 with a "YES" vote, we subordinate religious freedom and the people to the State; we deny certain children the blessing and right of a father and mother; we destroy the principles of moral and natural law upon which our nation was founded; and, we become a secular state subject to judicial interpretation and subjection where the people are subordinate.

I had an interesting conversation with someone the other day who indicated in his conversation with the opponents to Proposition 8 that if Proposition 8 failed to pass, polygamy would become legal in California. To which the individual objected saying that polygamy is morally reprehensible. Well? It is true, without a specific definition as noted above, we will be faced with the legality of same sex marriage, polygamous marriage and whatever else man can devise. For the opponents of Proposition 8 to find polygamy immoral, well? Even so, it is all about families and children.

A good friend noted today in our conversation, "Reserve marriage for procreative relationships and let civil unions take care of themselves, vote YES on Proposition 8."

Market Upheaval and Politics

2008-09-20T13:14:00.000-07:00

The global capital markets have provided an interesting and even scary ride this past week. Market upheavals are never fun, nor are they sought for events. Even so, given the nature of man, market upheavals are necessary events in our domestic and global societies. Market corrections are necessary because we tend to push the envelope and reach beyond reasoned bounds. To many this week has been revelatory and has exposed the excesses in our capital market society. Some have said that this past week was like unto the depression of 1929, really? Yes, we have been here before, and we will be here again - such is the nature of markets. You only get hurt on a roller coaster if you jump off. As scary as the ride may be, we usually arrive safely where we began. The rule in market corrections is not to jump off and endure the ride.

In spite of these corrections, our markets and economies are fundamentally strong. Foundationally, they are built on correct free market and economic principles, proven and tested over time. Notwithstanding, the US Treasury can meet its measure by needed intercession to restore market confidence if the corrections are perceived as potentially irreparable. In its bailout of AIG, the Treasury acted appropriately. The shareholders and management of AIG will bear the consequence of their folly, but given the security and equity interests taken, liquidity restored and markets stabilized the Treasury (US taxpayers) will benefit handsomely when AIG is repatriated in the free market.

I can recall in the mid 70's when mortgage rates were at 15%, overnight bank rates exceeded 20%, the 20 year Treasury Note hit 9%, the DJIA was around 600, the government stepped in an bailed out Chrysler with $1.2 billion in loan guaranties, and many thought we were doomed. Many thought the Chrysler bailout was a failed policy in spite of the nearly $500 million in profit to the Treasury in later years. The policy wasn't a failed policy as it restored confidence in the markets. The failed policy was the auto industry's unwillingness to change its much needed business strategy, thinking it could continue business as usual. Again in the 1980's we faced the S&L crisis which cost the nation dearly. The government bail out the S&L industry, again, was critical in restoring market confidence. Even so, what did we learn? Very little. The unfortunate consequence of past corrections is always reflected in future events. Corrections reset the bar but have done little to change the underpinning nature of the players. Hopefully, this correction will cause us to learn from our errant behaviors, although unlikely. An interesting article in the NY Times.

Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, and their staffs at the Treasury and Fed, have served us well in this correction and confidence is on course to restoration. Unlike the protestations of Senator Obama this correction doesn't rest at the feet of George Bush. It rests at the doorstep of our investment banks, insurers and commercial banks. Further, John McCain's inappropriate call for the head of Christopher Cox reflects our societies wont for a scapegoat. Without doubt, the management of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns and Lehman have been caught in their own trap, and we have had to endure the ride. In spite of it all, the system works. If any regulation is sought, is should be principle based and set the bar of consequence upon those who are responsible before we get beyond the breach. Let us be measured and not throw the baby out with the bath water. We needn't over regulate, but establish capital adequacy ratios and define assets and liabilities in a manner so as to assure our financial institutions (investment banks, insurers and commercial banks) are secure and competitive in the global market.

Having spent the past 30 years in the capital markets, and knowing the intracies and complexities of the markets that reach into every global sphere, whether through the derivative, debt or equity markets; of one thing I am certain, politicians are the last of any breed to try and regulate or oversee the fundamental economies of the world. Senators Obama and McCain, and their respective running mates, are not sufficiently resourced to respond, nor are most who lead our nation, whether in Congress or the White House. It is in their advisors, Secretaries of the Cabinet, Fed Chairman and other informed experts who are charged with a public trust that we can turn to for guidance in these matters, drawing further from the capital market industry. Let us hope for reason and capacity, and not political profferings as we weather these economic storms.

Surely, we will see future corrections, and most likely more often. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all Americans to be measured, reasoned and conservative in their financial houses - not reaching beyond our capacities and setting our storehouses in order to better enable our enduring of the storms ahead. We must limit our personal debts, set aside capital reserves, improve the depth of our food stores and live with prudence and within our means.

If only the American people could have seen and accepted the much needed capacity of Mitt Romney. Of any who have sought the office of POTUS, he understands the economic markets we face, and if we have any issue in this election, it is the economy, stupid!

Interesting Strategy - Blame Bush!

2008-09-18T22:33:00.000-07:00

It is interesting to note, when observing the political strategy and consequential rants of Barack Obama, that in all things he blames George Bush. Obama must feel the key to his success, in his run for POTUS, is in being the anti-Bush. For he has clearly defined his strategy of running against George Bush and not John McCain. Rather than proffer his own experience, credentials and visions (of which he has few), he runs principally on the anti-Bush ticket, claiming that his opponent, John McCain, is Bush incarnate and a third term thereof.

President Bush isn't without criticism on certain points, especially given his failure to hold Congress (Republican or Democratic) accountable, and thus squandering an opportunity to limit the size of government. Even so, the responsibility must rest with Congress, for Congress has failed our nation, not the President. He could and should have done more, but it doesn't excuse the failings of our Legislative branch.

That being said, the positive things done under the leadership of George Bush are significant, and America should be grateful for his leadership in America's Midnight Moments. Under President Bush, we have had no further destructive terrorist attacks on our land; when our economy was under serious threat, because of 9/11, President Bush led our nation in an economic recovery unlike any before, with tax cuts, and economic policies that favored all Americans. Under President Bush, America has flourished and grown, both domestically and internationally, with the strongest economy in the world, in spite of recent travails. Yes, he has led us in war, which could have been managed with greater acuity - even so, America has stood on principles of democracy and taken nothing unto itself, even giving the last measure of what has made America great, the lives of its soldiers in the defense of righteousness. Under President Bush, America has dedicated in excess of $30 billion to aid and attend the suffering of many in Africa, something President Clinton and those who have preceded him have not done.

Appreciating that the media has done all in its power and influence to undermine and diminish President Bush, even to providing foundation for Obama's strategy of Blaming Bush - I am perplexed!

Why is it that George Bush is responsible for:

-Irresponsible spending, even to ballooning the national debt by $3 trillion, when it is Congress that approves and legislates such?

-The current economic crisis, when it is Congress that has legislated and enabled lax lending and credit standards, even giving expanded capacity to the markets? It is not President Bush that has instilled the reckless actions of Wall Street and the underpinning greed thereof, it resides with the barons of Wall Street and their pursuit of return without consideration of the inherent risks. It is the American people who share responsibilty for living beyond their means, not the President of the United States. We are a people who have chosen not to take responsiblity, but to place the blame at the feet of George Bush and his "failed policies." Let us all stand accountable, recognizing that our choices, be we the barons of Wall Street, or sub prime borrowers, come with consequence. It is easy to blame others, but haven't we become caught up with excess?

-The corruption of politicians, both Republican and Democrat, when it remains with the individuals who have acted in violation of the law?

-The rampant expansion of lobbyists and undue influence in Congress, when it is Congress that is accountable for self governance and ethics?

-The failed auto industry and challenges in the economy's of Michigan, Ohio and the rust belt, when it is the Governors and state legislators that are responsible for their self determination and state economic models?

Barack Obama is so bent on painting such a bleak picture for the future of America, putting all responsibility on George Bush and the Republicans, that it has become ridiculous. Before long, it will be George Bush's fault that the NY Yankess failed to make the playoffs. It could become a new mantra in society when anything has gone wrong that somehow it is George Bush's fault. If you lose your job, fail to lose weight, trip and fall, or struggle with computer skills - it must be George Bush's fault.

Some attest to Barack's intelligence and it is his intelligence that is going to save us. Wake up America, Barack Obama is incapable of saving us! Observe and listen to what Barack is saying - all things rest at the feet of George Bush, and none of it is good. What happened to hope for our future - does it all rest at the feet of Barack Obama? Is he going to take credit for fixing every ill or every problem we face, individually or in society? Look who is supporting him? Do we really feel that Hollywood represents what is good in our nation? Are the uneducated actors in Hollywood really that astute to know how to save our dying America? Really?

Barack Obama epitomizes the failings of our current entitled society - he believes in "choice" without responsibility and accountability, he believes in "tolerance" as acceptance even if in violation of core values and not respect, which is what tolerance is, he believes in equality without consideration of the price that is paid for such. Barack Obama's economic policies, if employed, will severely damage our economy, but like unto Jimmy Carter's destructive economic policies, we can overcome such in a few short years - we are a resilient nation. Even so, we will not so easily overcome Barack's social and cultural agenda. It will take us 40-50 years, if even then, to overcome his appointments to the judiciary of advocates that undermine our freedoms like unto the California Supreme Court in their decision to redefine marriage to the subordination of religious freedom to the lifestyle of those with same gender attraction.

John McCain may not be all that we want in a leader, but of all things, he understands the principles and foundations of Freedom and will stand as a defender of what is right.

The Palin Query?

2008-09-07T16:16:00.000-07:00

A day doesn't pass where the question isn't asked, what about Sarah Palin? If the polls are to be believed (a stretch), McCain's gambit has paid off so far - he is now up in the Gallup Poll by 3% and Zogby by 4%. Even so, we still have just shy of a couple of months before we really know.

In my heart of hearts, I hope for a McCain/Palin Presidency as the alternative is frightening beyond measure. If, at the end of the day, we are relegated to an Obama/Biden Presidency, with a strong Democratic majority in the houses of Congress, with certainty we will suffer economically; windfall profits taxes on oil companies, increased capital gains tax, eliminating the upper limit on social security withholdings (a significant tax increase), increased personal taxes on anyone making over $150,000, a ballooned national debt to cover social initiatives, and on and on. Even so, an economic consequence of Obama can be overcome within a reasonsed period of time, believing that Obama will be like unto Carter and serve only one disasterous term. The greater concern lies within the cultural and social shifts we will suffer on the slippery slope of society's situational standards. The judicial appointments, both Federal and Supreme, will take nearly 40-50 years to recover from, if then.

Hence, my concern for McCain's recent choices, with a hoped for validation of his selection in Sarah Palin. I hold Charles Krauthammer in great regard, as he eloquently elucidates on critical points of worth in this election cycle. There are few who can compete with his intellect and understanding. He makes a great point in this recent Washington Post Opinion. It looks as if we have a short wait, as long as it may seem, before we truly know if McCain's gamble paid off. Here's to hope for a wise electorate that can see the lack of substance and serious failing in an Obama administration. If not, heaven help us all!

Defense of Marriage - Proposition 8 in California

2008-09-02T00:09:00.000-07:00

Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails

1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.

The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)

Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.

5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.

6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.

And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?

It’s your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your liberties.

Lets work together to protect them.

Join with us in walking precincts and phoning voters to vote Yes on Prop 8.

To a dear friend, GL, thanks for the enlightening consequences above.

Title of Liberty - Now Is The Time To Stand In Defense of Freedom!

2008-09-01T23:41:00.000-07:00

Today we face a world in commotion and situational standards that tear at the very fabric of our Freedom and Liberty. Words and definitions have changed; "tolerance" has become acceptance and embrace - even if contrary to core values and principles, "choice" has become the entitlement of society without accountability and responsibility, and "equality" has come to mean that we are all entitled to what everyone else has irrespective of consequence, principles or liberties compromised. These redefinitions matter, for they have formed the basis for certain entitled generations in our society to undermine our freedoms and liberties.

Consider the point of our courts who have trampled upon our religious freedoms, allowing for the "disenfranchised" to subordinate religious freedom to their individual wants and desires. Consider the New Mexico couple who photograph weddings being compelled by the courts to pay damages to the Same-Gender-Attraction couple because they chose not to photograph their "union," or the private Christian fertility clinic in San Diego that was compelled, against their religious principles, to artificially inseminate a Same-Gender-Attraction woman, even though they willingly referred her elsewhere. We have stepped on that slippery slope and the consequences are devastating to what truly matters in society.

We face a defining moment in choosing the next POTUS. Our very freedoms and liberties are at stake. Many in society may be sufficiently cynical and opt out of the process, dismissing their vote altogether, and some may even diminish, privately or publicly, those who would exercise their right to vote. Some may say, "what's the use in even voting at all," it doesn't matter. On the contrary, IT MATTERS! Whether victorious in our hopes and desires for our candidate to become the next POTUS, it matters that we exercise our right and our God-given duty to stand in defense of freedom!

Consider what we face. As noted in the illustrations above, we have sufficiently strayed from the founding principles of our free society, in the name of "tolerance, choice and equality." We have one candidate running for POTUS who epitomizes the "entitled generation" and adopts the current attitudes of "tolerance, choice and equality," at the expense of our religious liberty. It is not to say he is a bad person, just misguided and sufficiently persuaded contrary to the founding principles of our nation. We have in another, an individual whose freedoms were denied earlier in his life - he understands and stands in defense of those founding principles. May we be wise and thoughtful and exercise our dutiful right and privilege! It Matters!

Must we give up our First Amendment Liberties?

2008-08-19T09:34:00.001-07:00

Consistent with recent themes and the provocative query in an earlier comment from a reader, I believe that Mark Hemingway in his article below provides further validation of what is truly at risk. This is not simply about Marriage in California, as important as that is, this is about the freedoms and liberties that we share in our nation. (highlights added for emphasis)

Must we give up our First Amendment liberties?

MARK HEMINGWAY

If you’re strictly mercenary about it, the recent California supreme court decision legalizing same-sex marriage has its upside. According to a recent study by the UCLA School of Law, the ensuing rash of weddings is expected to pump $683.6 million into the state economy over the next three years. With movement toward legalizing same-sex marriage and civil unions across the country, it would seem to be a great time to be a wedding photographer.

But same-sex marriage is a complex issue, and nothing better illustrates that than the plight of the humble wedding photographer. “On the surface, this sounds like a gold mine for wedding photographers. But it’s actually more like a minefield,” explained photographer Sean Cayton on the photography website Black Star Rising. “You see, wedding photographers get most of their business from word-of-mouth and referrals. Many have close relationships with specific churches, which may have very strong beliefs for or against gay marriage.”

Of course, if you’re a wedding photographer who would like to avoid the minefield that might ensue should you offend churches in your community, you could end up stepping into another minefield that might be even more problematic — you might find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

In 2006, Vanessa Willcock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against a company called Elane Photography for refusing to photograph her gay commitment ceremony. The business is owned by a husband and wife — evangelical Christians who have made a decision not to photograph ceremonies related to gay unions. In April, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found against Elane Photography and ordered it to pay $6,637 for Willcock’s legal fees in bringing the complaint. The decision has been appealed.

Of course, Elane Photography is hardly alone. There’s been an effort in the courts not just to legalize gay marriage but to force acceptance of it as a matter of conscience and religious practice:

In Ocean Grove, N.J., a lesbian couple brought a complaint to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights against a Methodist church for not allowing them to use a pavilion on the church’s beach-front property for their civil-union ceremony. The church had offered the couple use of its property and boardwalk for the ceremony, just not use of places the church considered “worship spaces.” In January, an administrative judge with the Division of Civil Rights found against the church and stripped the pavilion area of its tax-exempt status for the church’s refusal to comply with the state’s sweeping anti-discrimination law. This will reportedly cost the church some $20,000 a year. Notably, the tax exemption was tied to the church’s making its property publicly accessible, rather than to any religious criterion — but the Department of Environmental Protection managed to lift the Methodists’ exemption within one week of the complaint’s filing, even though it isn’t the agency in charge of lifting tax exemptions. The church is appealing the decision.

In California, the state supreme court is hearing a case against San Diego fertility doctors who are being sued because religious objections led them to refuse in vitro fertilization to a lesbian couple. Legal observers noted that the court — the same one that just legalized same-sex marriage — seemed hostile to the doctors’ defense during oral arguments in May.

In 2006, Catholic Charities in Boston stopped providing adoption services since state law would have compelled them to facilitate adoptions by same-sex couples. The archdiocese was prepared to provide referrals for same-sex couples looking to adopt, but that wasn’t acceptable to the state.

Same-sex marriage has turned out to be a fertile breeding ground for litigation. “The basic argument is: Once the state recognizes us as married, no private group outside of the sanctuary of the church is entitled to treat us otherwise, and various civil-rights laws banning discrimination over sexual orientation ought to take priority over religious liberty in every case,” says Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress and a contributor to the forthcoming book, “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage have long criticized it on the ground that it redefines what marriage actually is. In its recent decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the California supreme court noted that the state’s domestic-partnership law already gave gay couples “virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law.” And yet legal activists continued to push for “marriage.”

Stern makes clear that he’s not saying these legal issues are necessarily an argument against same-sex marriage. “I’m not saying that [people] ought to be opposed to gay marriage or that in every case the religious claim triumphs. But there really is a problem, in particular with regard to free speech. There are disturbing indications that in schools and elsewhere, certain views will become officially anathema.”

Stern notes that, outside the U.S., lawsuits and legislation ostensibly in favor of human rights have led to tighter restrictions on religious expression and religious institutions. In England, a Catholic school has been prohibited from firing an openly gay headmaster, and parochial schools there are forbidden by law to teach that homosexuality is a sin. In Canada, the Alberta Human Rights Commission recently took the draconian step of issuing a ruling forbidding a Christian pastor to make “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality — or even to repeat Biblical condemnations — for the rest of his life. And in 2005, the Knights of Columbus were fined by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission for refusing to rent their hall for a lesbian wedding. (These Canadian human-rights commissions are the same bodies of dubious legal authority in which National Review’s Mark Steyn and the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s are currently under attack.)

And aside from threats to freedom of religious expression, there’s also the basic matter of free speech. Again, consider the wedding photographer. The Willcock complaint was decided on the basis of treating Elane Photography strictly as a business. The New Mexico Human Rights Act forbids “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of . . . sexual orientation.”

But is a wedding photographer strictly offering a business service? Photography is considered a form of artistic expression, and wedding photographers hold the copyright for their work. In this instance, putting a seal of approval on same-sex marriage might end up requiring a legal definition of what is art and what is a service, aside from the question of whether a person can be compelled to produce either.

While the courts and voters around the country decide to what extent they’re willing to redefine marriage, they might consider how many First Amendment rights they want to redefine in the process. Talk about a minefield!

Religious Freedom?

2008-08-19T08:35:00.000-07:00

The California Supreme Court has done it again! The Supreme Court Justices in California have ruled that freedom of religion is subordinate to the rights of those with same gender attraction. Apparently Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors, who practice in a private health care facility and refused to artificially inseminate a woman of same gender attraction, have neither a free-speech or religious exemption from state law. In essence, religious freedom is being trampled upon and subordinated to the wants and desires of an individual of same gender attraction who wants to be artificially inseminated. I can see if we are dealing with a life or death situation and the individual needs immediate medical care, the doctors have taken an oath and would be obligated to provide the best of care. But when it is simply elective and fulfilling a want or desire, for the courts to compel performance is beyond the breach.

As noted in my previous post, we find that the wants of those with same gender attractions being imposed upon society, wherein the same gender attraction community has turned to the judiciary to legitimize and legislate their lifestyle upon the majority interests in society. Our freedoms and liberties are without doubt being trampled upon, and it is not in our advocacy for freedom nor in our advocacy for Marriage. Our freedoms and liberties are being trampled upon in the name of "tolerance", "discrimination" and "choice." This is not about the heterosexual community imposing our lifestyle upon the homosexual community - On the contrary it is about the homosexual community imposing their lifestyle upon us to legitimize their elective choice and want. Surely, in our society the homosexual community can live as they wish, but when they seek to impose their lifestyles upon others, they trample upon the freedoms and liberties upon which this nation is founded.

As we choose our next POTUS, may we consider the criticality of this decision and choose wisely. In Senator Obama we have a man who reflects the attitudes and interpretation of our modern judiciary, legislating, dictating and imposing upon the freedoms and liberties that we cherish. A man who epitomizes the attitudes and philosophies of generational entitlement. In Senator McCain we have a man who believes and has fought for the freedoms and liberties that we share. A man who believes that our freedoms are endowed to preserve our society, not simply to fulfill our wants at the expense of others. Choose wisely and stand for freedom.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

2008-08-18T14:24:00.000-07:00

Noted below is my response to the comment on my previous post, when challenged why those who advocate California’s Protect Marriage Amendment, Proposition 8, would seek to deny the rights of “Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” of those with a “same gender attraction.” Sorry for the length, but it is critical to lay necessary foundations for understanding each other in the dialog.

Are the advocates of traditional Marriage, or marriage between one man and one woman, really seeking to deny liberty and happiness to those who are attracted to their same gender? What is really at risk? Are trampling the rights of others when we stand for traditional Marriage, even in our support of an Amendment to the US Constitution? In my opinion, the answers are clearly – No, Freedom and No.

Without equivocation, extremes exist in our society that advocate on both sides of the Marriage argument. It is not my intent to elicit stereotypical extremes, but to advocate a rational, reasoned and substantive argument supporting the answers above.

Foundationally, there are certain assumptive ground rules to the argument.

1) Word definitions - notwithstanding society’s redefinition of certain words, I will try to adhere to words that are clear and distinct in definition. For example:

a. “same gender attraction” is more specific and definitive than gay or lesbian and it’s connotation is clear and without confusion with “gay lifestyles” – there is a distinct perceptional difference, hence it’s use;

b. “agency” or “choice” – man’s agency or choice have been redefined in society as an entitlement without consequence or accountability that seeks to justify man’s right to choose whatever he will without consequential impact on self or others, i.e., I can do whatever I wish, it is my body, hence my choice. The argument of Pro-Choice is reflective of society’s interest to justify and rationalize the position of a “woman’s right to choose” without regard to accountability for creating life. Choice or Agency is not a “right” or “entitlement” if we deny or reject consequential accountability. In fact, we are all entitled to “agency,” it is a God-given gift, but inherent in its right reside responsibility, accountability and the consequential affects thereof. To redefine choice and agency as a right without consequence is simply a veiled attempt to pervert the God-given gift that it is;

c. “tolerance” vs. “acceptance” – tolerance in our society seems to have been redefined to further justify passivity and compromise to core values and principles, i.e., to be “politically correct” and not offend others. The situational standards of society have attempted to define tolerance and acceptance as the same – they are starkly different. As members of society we should be tolerant, i.e., respecting and understanding, of others. Even so, tolerance does not dictate nor demand that we are accepting of that which is contrary to our core principles.

2) Assumptions – notwithstanding society’s stereotypes, I hold to the following positions:

a. Individuals with same gender attraction are not by definition lascivious in their lifestyle and do not advocate promiscuity. Surely there are some, both heterosexual and homosexual, that do advocate and promote promiscuity and lasciviousness in their lifestyles, but these are the minority on both sides, and not to whom I speak. Those who fall outside of this dialog are wrong in their lifestyles and will never know happiness therein.

b. The situational standards of society have been used to justify and rationalize lifestyle and behavior. For example, a man who is kind, loving, and sensitive, even effeminate is often deemed to have same gender attractions, and is therefore classified and justified in choosing such a lifestyle – it is an “acceptable societal norm.” Unfortunately, the perversions of our society’s foundational norms have sought to classify individuals by their sexuality and hence justify and even advocate “alternate lifestyles.” This is not an argument of genetics or environment, only to state that our society is seeking to redefine and justify the rights of men and women by sexual orientation, without consequence.

c. The “traditional family” is and has been the foundation to our society and society’s through the ages. It is fundamental to God’s plan for man, to provide a nurturing environment for the development of the human soul within the bounds set forth by a loving Heavenly Father.

To the argument –

Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are enumerated in our Declaration of Independence, which is foundational to, and even the lens for, our Constitution. Even so, to put it in perspective, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The reference to unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator sets the framework for the argument, for our Rights, as so noted, are endowed within the bounds set forth by our Creator, our God, even our Heavenly Father. The unalienable Rights, within this framework and bounds set forth, are not without responsibility or accountability, for no man can have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unto himself as it would contravene the very society in which we live and the basis for our Declaration and Constitution. Our liberty and pursuit of happiness are set forth within our society, a society of laws, order and boundaries that preserve our freedom and liberty. Government and laws are not to trample upon our freedom and liberty, but in fact exist to preserve them. It is a fine line that seems to be getting lost in the judiciary of our day. Government and laws exist to preserve and protect, not dictate or determine our lifestyle.

Marriage has existed through the ages, and specifically our society, as a sacred and religious institution and covenant between one man and one woman (“Marriage”). The origin of Marriage began with the creation of man and was given by God for the nurturing of the human soul in a loving, divinely established family (The Family: A Proclamation to the World). The laws of our society have recognized and accepted Marriage in this form, a “status” if you will, and thus are set forth to preserve and protect the integrity of the institution as it was intended. It is neither within the purview nor authority of our Government to redefine or dictate the terms of Marriage, but to respect and preserve the sanctity thereof. Government did not create, nor establish the institution of Marriage, and thus cannot regulate it, only preserve and protect it. Therefore, the role of the Government is to defend and protect the status of Marriage as it was instituted by God. When governments seek to legislate lifestyle, or dictate who may enter into the covenant of Marriage, they overstep the bounds upon which they were founded and thus trample upon the liberties and freedoms of its citizens. It would be no different than the Government dictating that those, whose beliefs may be contrary to a given institution or church, are entitled by right and not privilege, in the preservation of liberty, to membership therein. We set foot on a slippery slope when we concede to governments the privilege of religious belief, the determination of our religious institutions, and the capacity to redefine the practices therein to the situational standards of society.

Some may say it is discriminatory, even disparaging, to deny those with same gender attraction the privilege of Marriage, hence the need for government intervention. Marriage is a privilege granted by God and a status protected by our nation, not a Right, even though some in society would say otherwise. The situational standards of society would have us believe that the sanctity of Marriage, as defined by God, discriminates against, and disparages, those of same gender attraction. On the contrary, governed by the order of eternal principles and privilege, of which Marriage is an integral part, obedience, fidelity and complicity thereto are fundamental – it is our choice to accept and obey, or reject the governing principles, again – accountability for our choices. If we choose to comply and obey we reap the blessings, if not, we receive not. The paradox in our society is that those whose attitudes and beliefs are contrary to the eternal principles of Marriage seek for the blessings and “entitlement” without paying the price of admission. The blessings of Marriage are available to all willing to comply with the principles whereby it is governed. With the privilege and sanctity of Marriage come responsibilities and obedience to the principles thereof, which responsibilities demand fidelity and complicity to its governing principles! Marriage and family have been and will continue to be critical to the foundation upon which our nation is sustained and preserved. If we question the veracity of the previous statement, look to the history of man, Rome, Greece and elsewhere where societies have failed when they have neutered Marriage and family.

If individuals with same gender attractions believe that choosing a lifestyle consistent thereto brings happiness, they are protected under the laws of the land to do so, provided however, that they do not seek to force or impose that lifestyle upon others. This equally applies to a society seeking to impose Marriage on the unwilling. Marriage is an elective covenant recognized and protected in our society and not legislated or imposed upon others, willing or unwilling. Again, the role of our Government is to protect and preserve the liberties and rights of its citizens. If individuals with same gender attractions wish to contractually cede certain rights to one another, as in any legal and binding contract, they are free to do so and the laws of the land should protect such. But to seek to define such an agreement as Marriage, reconstitutes and redefines sacred existing covenants, thus contravening and trampling upon the liberties of those who willingly entered into this sacred covenant.

Unfortunately, it has been the course of our society, and/or certain extremes therein, under the guise of tolerance, liberty, choice and lifestyle, to justify and legitimize the extreme. In effect, by twisting and redefining interpretations, and employing the liberality of the courts, there are certain elements of our society that would seek to impose and legitimize their lifestyle, behavior and opinions to the detriment of our liberty, our freedom and the foundation upon which our country was formed. As a society we are being led downward, with "flaxen cord," into a society where our freedom and liberty are being trampled upon, under the guise of “tolerance,” “choice” and “discrimination.”

Stand For What Is Right!

2008-08-17T17:20:00.000-07:00

The Eagle Foundation and the California Protect Marriage Amendment

The time is now, to stand for what is right, to stand with resolve and to act. We invite you to join with us! We have formed The Eagle Foundation, a Washington D.C. based 501(c)(4). The Eagle Foundation has been established to provide conservative value based leadership and facility for conservative grass roots initiatives and candidate support throughout the United States. We believe strongly in conservative principles and values, and recognize the need to counter current political trends in the US that undermine the family, moral values, conservative principles and the need for the United States to remain the pre-eminent economic super power, thus preserving the freedoms and strength and advocacy upon which our nation was founded. The Eagle Foundation is intended as a “Title of Liberty” whereunto Americans may look for advocacy of moral values, conservative principles and accountability of our political leadership. The Eagle Foundation further provides a vehicle for grass roots participation in support of its causes and candidates.

Rather than pursue a “re-creating the wheel” strategy, The Eagle Foundation has elected to pursue a strategy of identifying key conservative based initiatives, candidacies and/or Political Action Committees with which it can be aligned, thus providing leverage and increased capacity to achieve the objectives outlined above. The Eagle Foundation cannot, under Federal Election laws, contribute monies to Political Action Committees, Candidates or Initiatives. It can however, among other things, educate and train citizens to be effective advocates; cover PAC, initiative and candidate administrative costs; and develop, lead and deploy critical grass roots voter turnout initiatives, media support and critical task force support for candidates and initiatives that conservatives value.

We invite your participation in this endeavor, and seek your financial support to assist the Eagle Foundation in its mission as described herein. Given our current commitments to critical conservative causes and candidates, we invite your contributions. If you are able to assist us with a contribution in any amount, please contact by sending an email to EagleFoundation@gmail.com. We will respond with the necessary information.

Consistent with its founding principles, the Eagle Foundation has identified and committed to support and advocate the California Constitutional Marriage Amendment Initiative (Proposition 8). We have committed our resources for this critical cause , to preserve our freedoms and liberties. Please join with us as we sprint to the November election.

California Constitutional Marriage Amendment Initiative (www.protectmarriage.com)

The California Constitutional Marriage Amendment, identified as Proposition 8, has been developed as an outgrowth of a recent California Supreme Court ruling that contravened the will of the people of California when they resoundingly passed Proposition 22, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman,. By this ruling, California legally allows same sex marriage. Jointly with Massachusetts, California has set the course of destruction of the sanctity of marriage and the family in the United States. In support of family values and conservative principles, the Eagle Foundation (“Foundation”) has agreed to sponsor, support and facilitate the grass roots effort of the Protect Marriage Amendment Initiative in California. Specifically, the Foundation has agreed to jointly employ key statewide grass roots personnel for the Protect Marriage Initiative. Additionally, the Foundation will assist in coordinating, managing and training a state wide grass roots field organization for critical voter turnout initiatives, as well as the development of a 72 hour Initiative Task Force.

POTUS Candidate - Civil Presidential Forum - Thoughts
The distinct contrasts between the Presidential candidates last evening at the Civil Presidential Forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren and the Saddleback Church were self evident. Although both candidates seemed at ease given the format, their individual responses clearly illustrated who has the greater capacity to lead our nation. John McCain was clear and direct in his responses and without equivocation, in fact, he was impressive in his grasp of the issues - well done. Barack Obama was nuanced in most every response. He was unwilling to offend or speak with clarity of his positions on most issues. Yes, Obama speaks of change and unity, however he doesn't seem to understand the importance of standing for something. Trying to appeal to all positions and peoples, with flattery and nuance, speaks volumes and honestly is quite scary. Obama's position of being pro-choice and not pro-abortion epitomizes his nuanced approach to most issues. Thank you John McCain for standing with resolve, standing for what is right and standing with readiness to lead.

Obama Said What?

2008-08-05T08:05:00.000-07:00

Tell me he was misquoted, but in today's USA Today Opinion Section Obama in defining sin is quoted as saying, sin is "being out of alignment with my values." Did he really say that? I know he talks of audacity, but really. This is beyond the pale, that he could define sin in such a manner, and qualify himself as the arbiter and judge of what is sin. It is not mine to judge, for people can think and believe what they will. Even so, it is an issue of pride beyond measure and extremely dangerous for anyone to assume such a position. Maybe he meant to say that sin is being out of alignment with Christ's values, that gets him closer, but he didn't. America cannot, should not and hopefully will not elect any individual who appoints himself as such.

What would the world be like?

2008-08-04T14:36:00.000-07:00

The media in the United States has appointed itself as the arbiter of what is right and good, or so it seems. They have feigned independence as they have reported on the political scene, injecting with reckless abandon, their bias and opinions. They have shaped the perceptions of the US electorate, through their reporting, causing me to think that they have significantly contributed to our current slate of Presidential candidates. If considered in the aggregate, the biased reporting in most media reports, political or otherwise, reveal an interesting, and surely not mainstream, thought in our media punditry. From issues on family, marriage, politics, economy, religion, and so on, the media's bias has been evident when reading between the lines. Perhaps the power of the pen has gone to their heads, that their will and interest supersedes that of mainstream Americans. Are the majority of Americans sufficiently silent to allow this coup to survive?

A thought occurred to me the other day; what if we shipped those in the media and for good measure, the "Hollywood elitists," to their own land or country. How long would they last and what would their land or country look like after just a few short years. Beyond anarchy, economic chaos and social degradation, how many would survive, or choose to return to the bounty and freedom of America?

Just a thought?

Rhetoric, Reconciled and Resolved - Why?

2008-08-04T09:17:00.000-07:00

As noted in the previous post, we are choosing a candidate for POTUS that is the lesser of two evils. Both men unfortunately do not seem to represent the best that our country has to offer. Neither has hand's on executive experience. In Senator Obama we have an individual who is without sufficient experience and capacity to lead our nation; an individual who has fallen prey to the influences of the media and has begun to believe the hype, even to becoming prideful and arrogant; and an individual who fails to understand the role of government, espousing liberal thought even to the point of socialism. In Senator McCain, we have an individual whose behavior is cynical and reflective of a society that embraces situational standards; an individual whose life choices have not held true to principles of integrity and fidelity with regard to family; and an individual who, although true to country, I am not sure does the right thing for the right reason, again caught up in his own pride. Even so, amid the rhetoric we should now be reconciled and resolved in our support for John McCain. Why?

Having given it lengthy thought and study, notwithstanding my personal challenges with Senator McCain's current and past behavior, I am reconciled to the fact that he will in the least advocate "center-right" positions, and that he has and will continue to align himself with advisors and colleagues of the same ilk, with greater deference to conservative positions. Senator McCain will make judicial appointments that will constructively adhere to the Constitution. Contrarily, Senator Obama, who is very liberal in thought by his own admission, has and will continue to align himself with the past advisors to William Jefferson Clinton, each of whom espouse positions that are far left, making judicial appointments that will not only interpret law, but create law. John McCain preserves the checks and balances of our democratic republic while Barack Obama neuters the checks and balances that were established at our nation's founding.

It is down to which of the two candidates truly understand the role of government, and align themselves with counselors and advisers who advocate their understanding of government's role in society. We have two distinct philosophies at play. Senator McCain holds to the position that the role of government is limited simply to providing protection, security and preserving the liberties and freedoms of all Americans. Senator Obama, on the other hand, believes that solutions rest in government's role to dictate, determine and assure the lifestyles and liberties of all Americans. There is a difference. Whereas Senator McCain appeals to the electorate with realistic core values and conservative principles with substance, Senator Obama appeals to the electorate with flattery and rhetoric by proffering hope without substance, and advocating a government that is all things to all people.

In Senator Obama we see a reflection that is frightening, even an individual caught up in self, who believes that government should dictate, as they have in California, the lifestyles of Americans, and bring economic equality and wealth transfer through taxation. Recent California decisions to forbid the sale of transfat's (interesting, while still allowing the sale of alcohol and tobacco) and deny the development of fast food restaurants in South Central LA because of society's obesity, and the state Attorney General's misrepresentation of the Proposition 8 summary to the benefit of the gay and lesbian movement, are reflective of political will that is contrary to the precious freedoms bound in our Constitution. We are at a critical juncture, even a defining moment in America - we can preserve our freedoms and elect a candidate who advocates such, or we can elect a candidate who seeks to impose a greater role for government than what our founding fathers established at the birth of our nation, and thus in the name of choice and freedom, set us on a course that will ultimately cost us that which is so precious, our freedom and liberty.

I am personally convinced that John McCain will appoint and surround himself with individuals who will continue to advocate the need and capacity for America's economic strength and vitality, even to preserving our status and the world's leading economic superpower; individuals who understand the role of government to preserve our liberty and stand as a light to the world. Barack Obama, by his professed policies, will establish tax and economic policies that will constrain and hamper our economic vitality, even to the point of facilitating our subordination to other thriving global economies. Barack Obama has clearly delineated himself as one who will impose the will of government on the people rather than accept the will of the people. John McCain will preserve our freedoms and liberties by keeping government's role in check, while Barack Obama will seek to impose greater governmental influence and participation.

This is not an election about foreign policy or Iraq/Afghanistan, it is about economics and the preservation of our freedoms and liberties; it is about preserving our economic capacities as the leading economic superpower in the world; it is about economic, tax and energy policies that will stimulate our economy, thus assuring our capacity to lead in foreign policy, even to the critical leadership role dealing with the radical jihad we face. Choose wisely, but for me, we have only one choice amid the rhetoric to which I am reconciled and resolved - John McCain.

Far Too Long, But Something Has to be Said!

2008-07-20T08:20:00.001-07:00

It has been far too long since I proffered, in public, any remarks about the current political scene. I can't stand it and thus pontificate - forgive me.

1. Unfortunately, of all those in America that we could choose for President of the United States, the American people have chosen the two least qualified, (a) for the Democrats, Barack Obama, an intelligent and kindly, but very inexperienced, liberal who panders to what he thinks America wants to hear and whose policies and positions will exacerbate the current global economic crisis and put America on an accelerated course of mediocrity and irrelevance in a world that needs America's voice of freedom and democracy, and (b) for the Republicans, John McCain, a snarky, not-so-intelligent "cool" fighter pilot, who is also inexperienced in that which matters, and with temerity promotes his ability to lead America, with conservative principles, in a time of crisis.

2. As much as I disdain the character traits of John McCain and his innumerable inadequacies, given the choices before us being the "lesser of two evils", America has only one choice, if it is to remain the "hope of the world" and the one economic superpower that stands for freedom, and that is, dare I say it, John McCain. Barack, enamored with his own fame and popularity, has clearly evidenced his core economic and social principles and values, all of which are extremely liberal and would set America on a difficult course of economic stress and diminished capacity in the world when we are needed most.

Many who have chosen to stand with Barack, either support his policies or fail to understand them, and many who support John McCain do so because they do understand Barack's positions. Hence, Obama's tremendous appeal and popularity and McCain's more passive and unexcited support. In many ways, the American electorate is not sufficiently informed as to the policies and principles of the candidates for President of the United States, relying more on emotional appeals and media-hyped profiles in their ultimate determination as to whom they will support.

In both cases, Obama and McCain seem willing to say and do anything to get elected, notwithstanding their "supposed" core values and principles. Neither has evidenced a capacity, in their run for office, to stand resolute on what they believe. So it is that we are left with what we are. If it weren't so critical an election, one might be tempted to stay home. Even so, now is the time to stand and be counted in what matters and choose he whom we believe will do what is necessary against all odds, to preserve our nation as an economic superpower that stands, with substance and capacity, for freedom and democracy; one who will lead our nation in conservative moral values, preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and one who will keep our nation safe and secure, recognizing the basis and capacity to do so remains in our economic vitality.

Simply put, and without media hype and duplicity, Barack Obama will, with a Democratic majority in Congress - 1) raise taxes for middle income families (rollback of Bush Tax Cuts), 2) increase capital gains taxes (affecting the majority of Americans), 3) impose corporate windfall taxes (putting a significant damper on the US economy-it hasn't worked before and won't work now), 4) increase social security and medicare taxes for most Americans, 5) increase and/or allow social spending at the expense of military budgets and middle income families, 6) mollify, mute and subordinate America's economic, diplomatic and military voice globally to that of Europe and certain radical Islamic regimes, 7) appoint US Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges that interpret, with liberality, the laws of the land, even to the point of rewriting laws, 8) advocate and/or allow the continuance of abortion-type laws and the destruction of traditional marriage traditions and laws, and 9) compromise National Security with the dilution and diminution of our intelligence community, among many other compromising initiatives that he has proffered. I encourage all to not look at Barack's current pandering, but to his historical positions. He fails to understand economics and the need to lead with principle, falling prey to the situational and shifting standards of society by aligning himself with to the extreme advocates in society and not the "silent majority." Barack can give a great inspiring speech with enticing and eliciting words, but when dissected as to substance can be very revealing to the course he will take our country. Barack's speeches remind me of scriptural phrases such as a "flaxen cord" appeal to the natural man, or being filled with "swelling words" and "flattery."

Although John McCain is deficient in critical matters of character, evidenced in certain of his life choices, and in spite of his willingness to compromise conservative principles for the sake of accommodation, he remains the only candidate who will advocate that which preserves America as the "hope of the world." John McCain will take a hard stand on preserving our nation's economic viability and assuring that the United States remains the one superpower with capacity that will stand for freedom in the world. Do I have confidence that John McCain and I will agree on immigration or campaign finance reform - not in the least. Do I have confidence that John McCain understands the radical Islamic jihad against western society or moderate Islam? No. Will John McCain reflect honesty and integrity in all that he does - no, as he has proven his inclination to say and do what he needs to achieve his purposes, hence the lesser of two evils. Even so, I do believe that fundamentally, John McCain will stand more conservatively and correctly for the preservation of America as a land of freedom, prosperity and advocacy (with capacity) of individual and sovereign freedom around the world. John McCain will advocate and place needed controls on Congressional spending; he will advocate economic viability in the US through retention of tax cuts for individuals and corporations; he will promote a strong military with an understanding of its proper employ; he will preserve our national intelligence capability; he will secure our borders; he will appoint conservative judges to the US Supreme and Federal Courts; he will advocate life; he will stand for traditional marriage; and he will keep America safe.

John McCain will stand in the Executive Offices as a much-needed check and balance to an incapable and broken Congressional leadership. He will preserve the check and balance of the Judicial branch of our government. John McCain does understand the founding principles of our nation and will preserve such.

In support of John McCain, I advocate the support of the Free and Strong America PAC and the Eagle Foundation, a 501c4 that we have established to support the causes of freedom and that which matters most to our nation. Go Mitt, 2012!!!

Amen!

2008-02-25T20:49:00.000-08:00

Posted today on Article VI Blog by John Schroeder. I couldn't agree more with his assessment of Mr. Huckabee.

What IS Mike Huckabee’s Game?

Posted by: John Schroeder at 06:01 pm, February 25th 2008

Think about it, that is the question that has plagued this entire Republican campaign. Absent Mike Huckabee, or even if Mike Huckabee had played this thing by the normal rules, we would be in a very different place right now. Increasingly, those that supported him are making noises of embarrassment, or at least confusion and disappointment.

In the past week we have seen stories about the Baptist minister’s wife in Las Vegas and Huck huddling with James Dobson, creating a great deal of cognitive dissonance even from this occasional Vegas-visiting church-goer. But with his SNL appearance over the weekend, Huck moves into sheer ridiculousness.

Through the course of all of this my opinion of Mike Huckabee has moved from a religiously-motivated, but severely misguided candidate, to a closet hard-line fundamentalist whose real motivation was to “stop the Mormon,” to someone with whom I disagreed but was seeking to move the party in the way he felt appropriate. It is probably some of all of the above.

But one thing, given the tacit admission of the ridiculousness of his situation on SNL, is that Mike Huckabee does not care about much of anything other than Mike Huckabee. Hotline reports on his comments after the experience:

As tradition dictates, Huckabee returned at the end of the show, to be thanked by guest host Tina Fey. After the show ended, he told NBC/NJ that the experience was “a blast.”

“It was one of the coolest things I’ve ever got to do,” he said.

Obviously, Mike is having fun attracting attention to himself. There seems to be little else at play here. Huckabee has never clearly annunciated a strategy, a desire, or a motivation - in fact those things seem to be constantly shifting in a direction dictated by what will attract him the most attention. He is rapidly becoming the political equivalent of Brittany Spears - and as the political press is paying less and less attention (it ought to be even less than it is) the paparazzi seems more than willing to pick up the slack, and I am not at all sure Huckabee can tell the difference. or he does not care about it.

The man has claimed divine intervention on his behalf, something he even did humorously in the SNL appearance, and he has mocked other religions. But when it suited the public mood in the locale he was working he dropped all religious mention and played the class card, or some other tactic - whatever got him attention.

Now the world is full of people who want attention, that does not make Mike Huckabee unique or special. There have even been presidential candidates in it such selfish motivations, but never has a candidate pushed it this far, and on these basis’. Not only has Mike Huckabee soiled the political environment, something that happens in every election cycle, but he has soiled the religious environment as well, and that is problematic.

The problems with how Huckabee has used religion to benefit himself are multitude, but I want to examine just a few.

Ghettoization of religion in the political sphere.

Both myself and John Mark Reynolds have discussed this idea at some length. Identity politics, which is pretty much what Huck has played all along, although the identity has shifted from time-to-time, means the identity group must isolate itself into a ghetto of some sort and only what is in the ghetto matters. Huck’s primary identity has been that of Evangelical - that is certainly the one he has played to most, and definitely the one the press has assigned him - and as such they are currently residing in a political ghetto, there effectiveness minimized.

Playing Evangelicals for Dupes

In “ghettoizing” Evangelical voters, Huckabee has played us for dupes. He cannot hope to accomplish anything politically, but he continues to collect and represent Evangelical votes, apparently so he can have “a blast” on Saturday Night Live.

When the primary charge against the average evangelical voter is that they are “poor, uneducated and easily led.” What is going to come out of being played this way? Doesn’t Huck’s playing us this way reinforce precisely that characterization?

This guy no longer simply looks extraordinarily foolish, he now looks extraordinarily opportunistic, and what does that say about those that supported him? “Smart” is not the first answer that comes to my mind.

What is most troubling about all this is that in the best sense seeking office is called “public service” - that means one seeks our votes not to gain personal advantage, but to serve us. Huck seems to be operating in precisely the opposite mode. He appears to be seeking our votes to meet his need for media attention. Which brings me to my final concern

True religion is an end, not a means

Regardless of how you want to characterize Huckabee’s religious plays in the election , what is undeniably true is that he has used his faith and the faith of those that voted for him to achieve his personal ends. That strikes me as antithetical to the true aims of religion. As I understand it, we are to subject ourselves to our faith and allow that to make us into better people. As far as I can tell, that assertion is true for creedal or Mormon Christians. If we treat our faith as something we control and use, then we tacitly admit that religion is purely something that man has created to order society.

Now, the initial claim that started this blog, that Evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon is presumptive of the fact that Evangelicals hold their religious faith to be TRUTH, a higher truth, a truth apart from themselves, coming from the supernatural. So once again, we see that Huckabee has played those of us who take our faith seriously as dupes, since he apparently takes his faith in a very different fashion.

But more, he demonstrates that his ends are not necessarily the same as those of us that take our faith in a more traditional fashion. I do not know the theological basis’ that Mike Huckabee has to justify his behavior throughout this campaign, but as a pastor, I presume he has one. What I can say, is that based on his behavior, I would conclude that there is a theological canyon between myself and Huckabee that is as large as the one between Mitt Romney and myself.

So how, precisely, have Evangelical won in this deal? I don’t think we have - that’s the problem.

If Huckabee Wasn't On a Vanity Run!

2008-02-10T14:16:00.000-08:00

If Mike Huckabee had any class and wasn't pursuing his vanity run, he would stand aside and assure a unified Republican Party a chance in November. Huckabee will not displace McCain as the nominee and from inside sources, and most reasonable thought, McCain will not allow Huckabee any proximity to a McCain candidacy. Mike - get a clue, and stand aside!

Disappointed but Grateful!

2008-02-08T09:53:00.000-08:00

Thank You, Mitt and Ann!

It has been a very difficult and soul searching week. Even so, amid the disappointment I am grateful for the candidacy of Governor Mitt Romney, our friendship and participation in the cause we fought together. Mitt and Ann Romney stated over a year ago that they would never embarrass those who supported them. Not only were they true to their word, they have made us very proud. Hugh Hewitt speaks well to it HERE. They have sacrificed more than many realize out of love of country and patriotism. They ran not out of selfish interest, but out of duty and service to our nation. I am further convinced that the nation and the Republican Party will have sincere regrets over this past week and the absence of a Romney nomination and Presidency. It was the option of the nation to choose the most qualified candidate for President of the United States in nearly 100 years, and yet… We are now left with choosing the lesser of two evils in John McCain and Barack Obama (yes I believe he will win over Hillary). All that has been stated previously about John McCain stands as true today as it was when written. And so it pains me greatly as I personally choose to support one who is unworthy of the office by virtue of his lack of integrity over an individual who stands in good character but has the wrong philosophy for America. Mitt was right when he stated at CPAC, it is critical that we as a nation stand together in defending freedom and not abandoning our troops who are in harm’s way. The only shot we have to elect a Republican candidate who will preserve our National Security interest and espouse Freedom is to coalesce now and support cause over individual, in the form of John McCain. I still struggle with our chances in November when faced with an Obama rush, however, if we stand as one, experience and judgment should prevail. Furthermore, if John McCain were smart and intelligent, he would ask Mitt to join the ticket, thus giving substance to the conservative platform and strength in assuring a stronger economy. Notwithstanding, there is no promise of such.

My wife and I have taken leave of the country (Antarctica) for a couple of weeks to decompress and recharge. Even so, we press forward in a great cause of patriotism, trusting in the Almighty that America will be wise. Let us not lose hope, but hold fast in what is right. Thank you all for your support of Governor Romney!

A Cause Worth Fighting!

2008-02-06T11:38:00.000-08:00

To Ann and Mitt Romney - we cannot say it enough, thank you for the continued sacrifice in leading this great cause. It is a cause worth fighting for, and if ever a Title of Liberty was needed in our day, it is now. Although, we have all thought that we would be in a different place than we are, we are anxiously engaged in the fight, having rallied a conservative groundswell. We find it interesting and somewhat disappointing that we are opposed by those who would say and do anything to gain the Presidency, but we shouldn’t be surprised. Thanks for the resolve to continue and defend what is right, it is worth it! Eleven golds, eleven silvers and 6 bronze, Congratulations!

To our readers - It is clear that our message hasn’t fully saturated and electrified the electorate where it needs to; to the point of people abandoning the media bias and wanting to be enlisted into our Cause. Of course, when faced with a two-pronged counter attack from McCain and Huckabee, it is not surprising. But our cause and the message has begun to take hold, it is resonating and will lead the majority to abandon the media bias and the McCain ways of Washington, and join with us in Changing that which is broken! Keep the faith and continue to invite others to join us, it is a cause worth fighting.

From our vantage point, the key takeaways from Super Tuesday are:

1) It’s the Economy and it is inextricable link to National Security. You can't have one without the other, and John McCain admittingly, knows nothing of economics.

2) Washington IS broken and needs to be FIXED, and can only be fixed by someone capable from outside the hallways and backrooms of Washington.

3) The Heart and Soul of the Republican Party needs defending and unifying, and one who does not hold such in his heart (John McCain) cannot not lead to a place he is not at.

4) Mitt Romney is the one to lead this effort. He is the only viable candidate that can Unify that which has been fractured by the detractors of conservatism.

John McCain and Mike Huckabee have compromised the principles of integrity by their continued distortions, lies and misrepresentations. They have employed dishonest and backroom politics to win at any cost. Truth and right ultimately prevail and as such their true characters of duplicity and willingness to say and do anything, without regard to integrity and honesty, to win will be revealed. This is a significant battle for what is right and in spite of negative and dishonorable tactics by McCain and Huckabee, Mitt Romney will stand tall and on principle, and win with integrity. To paraphrase John McCain, "when you play in the mud with pigs, you get muddy, and the pigs like it."

John McCain, if he were to represent the Republican Party, would be shellacked by Barack Obama. As Ann Coulter has stated, Hillary would beat him as the conservatives in our Party would not rally behind him. Mitt Romney is the only one who can win this election for conservative Republican principles.

For those who stand with Mitt and Ann, appreciating their sacrifice and commitment, remain constant and true. Continue to make your contributions to the primary campaign, and above all invite those that you know to join the cause. We fight on!

For those with questions, some further points to consider below:

· Super Tuesday proved that this is a very fluid election. Gov. Romney won seven states, including Colorado and Minnesota where Republicans must be competitive in the general election.

· The nomination is by no means settled. Even assuming that McCain reaches 700 delegates once counting finishes in California, he would still need to win 77% of delegates from upcoming states to secure the nomination by April 1.

· Gov. Romney did surprisingly well in several key, battleground states. Gov. Romney won Minnesota despite Sen. McCain have the support of the sitting Republican governor and senator. Gov. Romney also did better than expected in Georgia and Missouri.

· Gov. Romney has received eleven gold medals, eleven silver medals and six bronzes. He is the clear full-spectrum conservative in this race.

Post-Feb. 5:

· On Thursday, Gov. Romney will be at the Conservative Political Action Conference where Gov. Romney will address his vision for the future of the Republican Party and nation.

· After Feb. 5, we expect to be competitive in the Kansas and Washington state caucuses on Feb. 9 and then the Feb. 12 states – Virginia, Maryland, and also Washington, D.C.

· Upcoming states will be fertile ground for Gov. Romney because the two largest states on the primary calendar between today and April 1, Texas and Ohio, are favorable terrain. Texas has a very conservative GOP primary vote and 140 delegates; Ohio's economy is similar to Michigan and the state has 88 delegates.

· Gov. Romney did well in caucus states where we focused our energy and resources. In just a few days, Republican voters will caucus in Kansas (39 delegates, winner-take-all) and Washington (40 delegates, proportional) which promise to be strong states for Gov. Romney.

Conservatives Are Coalescing Behind Governor Romney:

· Once again, Gov. Romney carried conservative voters by wide margins. Nationally, he won conservatives by double-digits, 42%-31% over Sen. McCain.

· Even in states Sen. McCain won, Gov. Romney carried conservative voters. For instance, in California, Gov. Romney won conservatives by six points, 39%-33%. Gov. Romney even won conservatives in McCain's home state of Arizona, 43%-40%.

The Republican Party Is Not Coalescing Behind Sen. McCain And Gov. Huckabee:

· Super Tuesday's results show that Sen. McCain is not the presumptive Republican nominee as he himself had expected.

· Sen. McCain made several campaign mistakes. He spent the last few days campaigning where he was the strongest – New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. He also spent time in Massachusetts where Gov. Romney won comfortably.

· Gov. Huckabee is not expanding his base of support. He overperformed anywhere where there were large numbers of evangelical voters and underperformed wherever there weren't. Gov. Huckabee's lack of support is evident in his underperforming showings in AZ, CA, NJ, NY, CT and MA.

· Gov. Huckabee has lost five states to Ron Paul, including at least three on Super Tuesday.

Its all about Character and Integrity.

2008-02-05T15:32:00.000-08:00

Each Presidential Campaign reflects the character and integrity of its Candidate. Yes, policies and issues matter and they are that which draw us to our respective candidates, but it is their character and integrity that commits us to the effort. Even so and notwithstanding policies and issues, in my opinion, if a candidate is without integrity and character, the policies and issues are of no consequence. We are a principled people, at least in the majority! Maybe I am too idyllic in my expectation, but this has been and continues to be an educational experience. Given our proximity to the inside of a Presidential Campaign, I find the juxtaposition interesting when comparing the 4 remaining Presidential contenders. The distinctions in both the Democratic and in the Republican races are quite similar and dramatic.

For example, when comparing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both have similar policies and positions on the issues, albeit it one may be more left than the other, and both have committed supporters. Barack and his campaign have reflected integrity in their pursuit of the Presidency and his supporters are more committed to the cause he espouses because of such (a mile deep), whereas the Clinton campaign also having avid supporters, has been without honor or integrity in their pursuit of the Presidency, and it is my opinion that the Clinton base is less educated and those that are educated are driven more by compulsion, power and position than anything else (an inch deep). It is an interesting dynamic that is not lost in the Republican race either.

In comparing the current Republican race, Mitt Romney and John McCain are not equals by any measure and their positions and capabilities are quite distinct and different. Setting aside the disagreements on issues, solutions and capability, it is the character and integrity of the candidates that matter most to me. Even though I do not and cannot agree with John McCain's positions on matters critical to our nation, i.e., energy independence, immigration, national security, the economy, education and so on, it is the lack character and integrity reflected in his campaign that distresses me so, for it is a clear reflection of the man. Today my phone line and email have been inundated with complaints of California voters who have been called by the McCain campaign with false statements and lies about Mitt Romney, calls stating Mitt supports abortion or amnesty. These dishonest characteristics were also employed in Florida as well. Conjunctive with the recent backroom deal to hijack the West Virginia election process reflect accurately upon John McCain, an individual without honor, integrity and honesty. I have pondered the nature of those who support Mr. McCain and how it is that he can find enough people to lie on his behalf. What is it that drives them? Is it their ignorance and their blindness to his duplicity? Is it power? Is it compulsion and fear? Most likely, all of the above! Even so, I don't know if we will ever know for sure. But this I do know, John McCain is no Mitt Romney. I have known Mitt for a few years and I know him as a man of honor and integrity, committed to a righteous cause for the right reasons. Ann Romney stated early in the campaign, "we will never embarrass you," and they continue to keep that promise.

The Republican race is very competitive and Mitt continues to run a campaign that reflects who he is, a man of honor and integrity, while John McCain runs a dirty and dishonest campaign, again a reflection of the man that he is. I find it also interesting that because of his incapacities and failings in things that matter, John McCain has resorted to the tactics that he has, a win at any cost approach. It will not work! I have faith in the people of this nation and my further hope is that America will finally see John McCain for who he is and what he represents. California will lead the way and deliver a decisive victory for Mitt today.

Leadership and Electability Indices

2008-02-03T02:09:00.000-08:00

An interesting comparative between the four leading candidates in the Republican and Democratic Presidential races. John McCain claims to be the leader of our day, because he led a Naval Squadron of 400 men for patriotism, not profit. He further claims that Mitt Romney is just a manager and not a leader. Senator McCain does compliment Senator Clinton stating that she would be a "good" President of the US, a claim he is unwilling to make of any Republican candidates. Given the claims of John McCain, and the similar claims of his soul mate Hillary Clinton, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to compare the leadership qualities of each candidate. Bear in mind, the criteria reflects my opinions, with hoped for objectivity. As a foundational point, I believe that leadership qualifications demand experience, be it private, public or philanthropic, with a marginally greater emphasis on the private sector over the public sector. Additionally, there had to be a standard for comparative purposes. Given the breadth of Mitt Romney's experience in all sectors (private, public and philanthropic), he is identified as the standard to which all others are compared. Effectively, Mitt Romney's index is 248, Barack Obama is 150, Hillary Clinton is 82 and John McCain is at 50. The conclusion being that Romney and Obama have the greater leadership skills and experience, while Clinton and McCain are similar and less experienced in leadership and the skill sets attributable to leadership.

John McCain claims that he is more electable in the Republican Party and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each make the same claim for the Democratic Party. Below is an interesting Electability Index wherein the greater delta between the candidates indicate stronger contrasts between each candidate. At the end of each spectrum, you have Mitt Romney as the conservative with an index of 273 and Barack Obama as the more liberal with an index of 2. John McCain would be more proximate to the liberal spectrum (moderate to liberal) with an index of 84 while Hillary Clinton is nearly competitive with Obama, having an index of 5. The point of electability wrests in the greater contrast between the conservative and liberal candidates. With Romney at 273 and Clinton and Obama at 5 and 2, respectively, Mitt Romney would draw a greater contrast and thus appeal to an electorate that is like minded. John McCain, with an index of 84 and nearer to the Clinton and Obama indices would not contrast as well, thus leaving an electorate to choose candidates that are like minded. In McCain's case, his campaign against Clinton and Obama would be less idealogical (given the similarity of positions) and based more upon personality. Against Obama, McCain would appear old, less energetic, less capable in debates and far less charismatic. A McCain - Clinton comparative would be difficult, again because of little contrast on ideology and more an election of similarity, leaving a flip of the coin to who might prevail. A Romney campaign against Clinton and Obama would be distinct and based upon primarily on ideology and capability.

When both indices are employed, leadership and electability, in head to head contests, Romney vs Clinton or Obama, and McCain vs Clinton or Obama, the contrasts are clear. Romney holds the leadership card with ideology and experience that significantly contrasts with Clinton and Obama. It has been said when you put a straight stick next to a crooked stick, the crooked stick seems more crooked. By these measures, Romney would beat Hillary Clinton in a head to head contest. A Romney - Obama contest would be more competitive, but based upon the indices it would appear that Romney carries the advantage, and again wins the day. Alternatively, considering both indices, a McCain - Clinton matchup would produce an uncertain victor (anybody's guess), but given the Clinton machine, a likely Clinton victory; while a McCain - Obama contest would clearly favor Obama. In fact, Obama would far outpace John McCain leaving a repeat of the Dole demise.

None of these points have taken into consideration the financial capabilities of the 4 remaining candidates. Three are competitive with each other in financial resources and John McCain is severely handicapped with significantly fewer financial resources than the other three.

Notwithstanding the assessment above, each can draw their own conclusions. However, it seems readily apparent that Mitt Romney has the greater leadership experience and skill sets, and holds more consistently to the conservative principles of the Republican Party. As has been written, the heart and soul of the Republican Party is threatened with McCain and assured with Romney. Likewise, the Republican Party has a strong opportunity to win the general election with a Romney nomination. As much as McCain can protest his position as the front runner and likely nominee, it is without substance and shallow in its foundation. Saying it doesn't make it so!

Disclosure: As a Romney supporter, I have tried to be objective in this assessment. If not, I apologize, and would suggest that you can discount the indices to satisfy the perceived bias. Even discounted, Romney stands much stronger than McCain, Clinton and Obama.

How Do I NOT Love John McCain, Let Me Count the Ways!

2008-01-28T21:46:00.000-08:00

An interesting study; Mitt Romney is the antithesis of John McCain, hence my complete support of W. Mitt Romney. Reasons that disqualify John McCain, not only for President of the United States, but also as a US Senator.

1. Prideful and Arrogant - His ego and pride are such that he is unwilling to accept advice or admit his own failings or errors. A dangerous failing that places his interests above our nation and the needs of America. Unwilling to seek understanding, seeking first to impose his own agenda. The greatest leaders and Presidents in our nation have always sought contrary counsel and became great leaders because of it. It is a unique individual who can look to contrary thought and counsel, and choose wisely. The proof is in the pudding, compare McCain's history and Romney's.
2. Lack of Intellectual Capability - McCain evidences his ignorance and lack of intellectual capacity by his failure after 25 years in Washington to learn about the economy and the economic principles that are foundational to the US. His myopic capacity of military strategy defines him, and nothing else. You would think after 25 years in Washington he would have broadened the depth of his knowledge of issues and principles that are fundamental to the USA. McCain may be a great military strategist, but the POTUS needs to lead the nation in all things fundamental; economics, foreign policy, and social values. Military strategy falls within foreign policy only as a subset and is not the substance of such.
3. Lack of Discipline - McCain's inability to communicate without profanity is an indication of a limited vocabulary and incapacity to control his speech and as noted below, his anger or temper.
4. Volatile Temper - Frightening as it is, John McCain does not have the demeanor nor capacity to govern without a violent and uncontrollable temper, which bodes poorly for reasoned leadership. He is too quick to react without thought or substance, which threatens our National Security. John McCain poses a greater risk to our National Security by virtue of his volatile temper.
5. Dishonesty - The great paradox of his "supposed" honor and integrity is seriously compromised by his personal agendas, past actions (Keating Five), and delusions of grandeur as to his importance and prominence. His win "at any cost" attitude in the Presidential campaign reflects a lack of integrity. Absent his incarceration in Hanoi, he would not even be considered relevant in today's political and national society.
6. Age - Not that being 72 is a negative thing, as wisdom in most cases is evident in age. Even so, at 72, McCain specifically has become more rigid, more cantankerous, subject to serious health issues (that have plagued him in the past), and has illustrated a general sense of negativity beyond measure. Further, he plays to the age of his mother, but his age and risks associated therewith are more resident in his father, who is no longer with us.
7. Economic Policies - or lack thereof.
8. McCain Kennedy - continued resolve to promote immigration policies that adopt amnesty. A rose by any other name smells just a sweet. Securing the border is only part of the solution. Eliminating magnets is critical, as is abiding by the rule of law.
9. Radical Jihad - McCain only understand the military complexities and strategies without understanding the fundamental and foundational issues relating to the radical Islamic Jihad. He thinks of it as a military action, when in fact it is grounded in radical religious thought and demands the comprehensive solution proposed by Governor Romney.
10. McCain Lieberman - McCain lacks an understanding of energy policies and global warming and thus cannot propose a reasoned solution without compromising our Nation, in jobs, trade and economic compromise. After 25 years he has turned first to compromise over principle, which defaults to compromise of critical and inviolable principles.
11. McCain Feingold - So anxious to limit capital in politics, he compromised free speech in American politics and has exacerbated the problem. There is more money in politics now without accountability than ever before.
12. National Security/Strong Economy - John McCain does not understand that we cannot have a secure nation without a vibrant economy. If anyone doubts, talk with the Soviets...oh that's right, they don't exist anymore. The philosophy of the Soviets was a strong military and national security without a strong and vibrant economy. Look what happened. We need a strong and vibrant economy to maintain National Security. You can't sustain one without the other. It is the economy ...!
13. Decision Making/Problem Solving - McCain offers solutions without understanding the problems, a critical flaw in analytic thought and leadership. This approach is frightening if applied to the problems we face in our Nation. Can you imagine the consequences! Look at his history of solving problems - did anything get solved, or is it now worse?
14. Fidelity - If you can't have fidelity in marriage, how can you have such with our Nation.

Shame on You, John McCain - You Have Dishonored Your Legacy!

2008-01-27T13:23:00.001-08:00

John McCain has dishonored his legacy, again. For a man who has stood on his record of integrity and honor, he has diminished his character again by his false accusations and failed attempt to malign the character of Governor Mitt Romney by using our military men and women. Fortunately, Mitt Romney is one of honor who cannot be diminished by those that are less than him. By making false statements about others for his own personal gain illustrates the true character of the man. No one can deny Senator McCain’s service as a POW in Viet Nam; he paid a great price for his service to our country. But when he undertakes to lie and misrepresent the positions of others on Iraq, he affirms his own weaknesses and incapacities. It is obvious, by his own admission and responses to economic questions, that Senator McCain is inept when it comes to understanding economics. It is also obvious that he is trying to reorient the current Presidential dialog back to his perceived strength of military strategy and away from the economy. Even so, he should make the case for his own strength rather than lying about the position of others to prop himself up. It shows a great weakness in character and one unworthy of President of the United States. And, to do so using the service of our military personnel is even more egregious. If you are going to run for the office of POTUS, do so with honor and integrity; do not sully the office by deceit and falsification; do not compromise the principles that American’s expect of their President. Too many in the past have done so, only to bring shame upon the office!

Personally, I have not held Senator McCain in high esteem given his past follies (Keating Five), cheating on his wife who waited for him while held prisoner in Hanoi, and his continued egotistical and arrogant manner, even his failure to acknowledge his mistakes. Senator McCain is quick to anger and character assassination when others do not agree with him. He has evidenced his inability to control his emotions and keep his language in check, time and time again. Even so, to my knowledge he has not traded his emotional outbursts and anger using our military men and women, until this election cycle. However, in his anxious and vain pursuit of the Presidency, he has used the honor and service of our military men and women more than once for his own personal gain. It proves the point that Senator McCain has put his personal interest above the honor and character of the office he seeks.

Senator McCain’s flat denial of statements concerning his lack of understanding of economic issues is not only illustrative of his willingness to compromise his principles of integrity, but a further indication of a serious flaw in his character, integrity and honesty. These actions coupled with his continued falsifications and misrepresentations about others for his own aggrandizement and gain is beyond the pale, and disqualifies him for the office of President. It places him firmly in the camp of Hillary Clinton and others who have sought to lie their way into the office of POTUS. Although, I have not agreed with John McCain on many issues, i.e., illegal immigration, economic policies, marriage amendment, campaign finance reform, energy policies, and on and on, his lack of honor and integrity in that which matters most is the greatest disqualifier. Had John McCain not been a POW in Viet Nam, we would never have had to experience his failed leadership in the Senate; sadly, America would be a better country without John McCain in Washington. We cannot afford his continuance in our nations's capitol.

On to Florida - Delegate Count

2008-01-20T00:39:00.000-08:00

Whereas we had expected a greater thinning, it appears that Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee are severely damaged going into Florida. Both couldn't translate their southern roots to a much needed victory, and with diminished financial capacity, they will find it difficult to compete in Florida and February 5th. John McCain's South Carolina victory was not resounding, leaving Florida a battleground state. Although McCain can claim victory, and the MSM proclaims his frontrunner status, he still has yet to gain validation or acceptance of the Republican base. Rudy has bet the farm on Florida and it could be argued that his residence in Florida these past weeks has not garnered him any more support than a 4-way tie for first. Mitt is going into Florida with strength after Nevada, the delegate count, majority of Republican votes and depth in his financial resources and message. Florida is the next defining moment for McCain, Giuliani and Romney. Huckabee and Thompson will most likely continue to struggle and ultimately withdraw, whereupon their likely constituencies would lean to Romney, coalescing the conservative Republican base behind a Romney candidacy and Republican nomination. Patience, Perseverance and Strength will be advantages to Mitt's message and well of experience and leadership, leading to the nomination.

Romney

McCain

Huckabee

Thompson

Paul

Giuliani

Hunter

Romney wins Michigan! What Now?

2008-01-16T03:40:00.000-08:00

They say it is wide open in the Republican race. With a decisive and foretelling win in Michigan (Romney 39%, McCain 30%, Huckabee 16%, Paul 6%, Thompson 4% and Giuliani 3%), Mitt is off to South Carolina, Nevada and Florida. Patrick Ruffini has a great summary of Michigan HERE, and what it means for John McCain. Rassmussen and Fox polling currently show McCain with the advantage in South Carolina (pre-Michigan), but the landscape has changed. Just watch, Mitt could finish very strongly in South Carolina in spite of the punditry! Most recently Mitt has been leading in the Nevada caucus, and Florida has a margin of error race between Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Huckabee for first. We press forward and on to the nomination!

South Carolina will be a defining moment for each of McCain, Huckabee and Thompson, with a must-win for each. Whether it is McCain, Huckabee or Thompson, whoever wins South Carolina will move forward in this strategic race! Realistically, there is no room after 1st for Huckabee or Thompson. 2nd and 3rd hold little value for them and will likely result in a withdrawal from the race, either before or after Florida. Huckabee and Thompson must win to evidence their viability among the Southern States. The absence of a win, and with little financial depth, they will be fatally wounded. McCain, most likely, could continue with a strong 2nd in South Carolina, but anything short of 1st or 2nd would be fatal to his campaign. If Huckabee or Thompson were to win in South Carolina, they would breathe new life into their campaigns, but it will be a struggle for them on February 5th, given the breadth of the race and diminished resources available to them. Hence, South Carolina will determine who among McCain, Huckabee and Thompson will remain in the race.

Florida remains Rudy's firewall, and absent a strong win, he will struggle through February 5th. A flaw in Rudy's February 5th execution, has been his hoped for, but not achieved, strong finishes (2nd or 3rd) in the early states.

Mitt Romney remains in the strongest position of all Republican candidates to secure the nomination. With wins in Wyoming and Michigan, 2nds in Iowa and New Hampshire, and with the most delegates, Republican votes and depth of financial resources, Mitt has established a strong lead among the field of candidates. Rudy must win in Florida to validate his strategy. He is pouring all of his resources into Florida, and absent a win, he will only have fumes to carry him into February 5th. The winner of South Carolina among Huckabee, McCain and Thompson, will remain in the field. Thankfully, after South Carolina, the field will be narrowed down to 3.

However, don't dismiss Mitt in South Carolina, as he still polls statistically tied for 2nd. He may well pull out South Carolina and Florida victories with a strong campaign effort and a Michigan bounce. If he does, the landscape changes dramatically. If Mitt is 1st or 2nd in South Carolina and Florida, he will be tough to beat for the nomination. I have always held a firm belief that Mitt will be the nominee, and the strategic victories to date support that position.

John McCain and Rudy Giuliani lack the support of the Republican base, and Huckabee has never had it. Huckabee lacks the depth and substance to lead, and having appealed only to the evangelical community, cannot nor will not succeed in his ambitions. Thompson has yet to garner the needed traction to win. Notwithstanding the lack of 1st place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt's strategy to compete in all states, and to do well in the early states, is proving to be the right strategy. We talked about this strategy 2 years ago and amid the fluidity and uncertainty of politics, Mitt has executed his strategy quite well to date. And so it truly begins...

Republicans

State	Date	Delegates	WMR	MH	JM	FT	RP	RG
Total	-	-	42	21	19	6	2	1

Unpledged RNC	-	0	6	3	-	-	-	1

Iowa	01/03	40	12	17	3	3	2	-

Wyoming	01/05	14 *	8	-	-	3	-	-

New Hampshire	01/08	12 *	4	1	7	-	-	-

Michigan	01/15	30 *	12	-	9	-	-	-

1,191 Delegates Needed to Win the Nomination

According to Real Clear Politics

Pundits - What Do They Know?

2008-01-11T14:34:00.000-08:00

The punditry never ceases to amaze me. The only view that truly seems to be "fair and balanced" and/or reasoned thought is that of Hugh Hewitt. Hugh gets it in his commentary after the Romney interview! All others are so anxious to write off the most viable of candidates, Mitt Romney, for reasons cited by Hugh.

My view of the Repubulican race -
Economics:
The following candidates are out of money or have so little that they are unable to compete effectively for the nomination:
John McCain (heavily in debt), Rudy Giuliani (senior staff foregoing pay), Fred Thompson (not enough money to buy paid media), Mike Huckabee (post MI and SC he is flat broke).

The only candidate with financial resources, having raised an impressive $5+ million with a second place finish in New Hampshire - Mitt Romney. An interesting aside, little of the fundraising success was reported in the MSM.

It isn't all about money, but it helps immeasurably.

Message and Experience:
Recent polling in the US indicates that although the war on terror is important, more are concerned about the economy. If John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee cannot manage a campaign's finances to achieve their stated objective, how can they lead or manage the US economy? You cannot lead from a place that you haven't been!

Mitt Romney remains the only candidate to have worked in the private sector, who has successfully led business, philanthropic and public enterprises. If only we had invested with him early on, our $1,000 investment would have been worth $36 million 14 years later. Which candidate of all that are running for president, Democratic or Republican, would you want to invest your money with? Who can you trust to manage and lead in a global economy? Mitt's messaging will illustrate the point. For Michiganders, the answer is obvious. For pundits, they have no clue! Mitt is not stepping aside and has no reason to do so given the depth of resource and message, and delegate count (now and through February 5th).

Prognosticating the Race:
Michigan:
Mitt Romney's message of turning around the MI economy should resonate - Mitt should win*
*If he doesn't win, it will be a result of the Democratic invasion (Hillary is the only one on the ballot - no real primary) into the Republican Primary to influence a lesser candidate, McCain being the likely beneficiary.
If Democrats and Independents truly care about their economy in MI, they will still vote for Mitt. Watch for a positive message from Governor Romney on the economy. An interesting dynamic, will be to compare Governor Huckabee's economic message with Governor Romney, both will be presented before Tuesday, Huckabee today and Mitt tomorrow at the Detroit Economic Forum. A further note on John McCain's economic credentials - he saved money on military spending? Having never been accountable for a budget or enterprise, I am struggling to understand his economic expertise - he seems to struggle with even the most general concepts when queried in debates.

The failure of Mike Huckabee to win Michigan will debilitate him sufficiently, that anything less than 1st place in South Carolina may well end his run. McCain can finish in the top two without any negative consequence, however, he will need to finish strong (top two) in South Carolina to continue.

South Carolina:
A knock down battle is underway between Huckabee and Thompson, and McCain. If Thompson doesn't finish strong in South Carolina, he is most likely out because he doesn't have the resources to continue. If Huckabee doesn't win, or finish strongly in South Carolina he is without the resources to continue. If McCain does not win or finish strongly in South Carolina, he is also without the resources to continue. Although a win by McCain in Michigan will diminish his need to win South Carolina. Effectively, it is likely that only one, or maybe two, of McCain, Huckabee and Thompson will survive the South Carolina primary. As for Romney, a top three finish in South Carolina is fine following a strong Michigan finish. Further, Mitt has the resources, supporters and commitment to continue through February 5th, and beyond.

Nevada:
Mitt Romney should win Nevada, which carries more delegates that South Carolina.

Nevada has not been seriously contested by the other candidates and Mitt has been polling very strongly, given his campaigning in Nevada.

Florida:
It doesn't make much sense to prognosticate Florida at this point given the fluidity of the race and the consequential impact of Michigan and South Carolina. Patience! Even so, it is a firewall for Rudy. If Rudy does not do well in Florida, it will affect him on February 5th.

In summary, without a clear frontrunner and with competing candidates that are constrained in their resources and relegated to must win scenarios, Mitt Romney is well positioned in the race and he has a sustainable strategy. Rudy, albeit with limited resources, is probably the next best positioned to carry through to February 5th. McCain, Thompson and Huckabee are fragile and very dependent on the next couple of primaries, and will struggle to continue without strong finishes. My suspicion is that McCain will do well in South Carolina, leading to an early exit by Thompson and most likely Huckabee. If Huckabee continues it will be limping through the process. I find the pundit's commentary interesting as they give McCain the nod for being in a strong position. McCain is in a very dependent position, to say nothing of the fact that he is surviving on borrowed funds.

Conclusion:
In the end it will be Romney vs Rudy or Romney vs McCain.

Ron Paul is in his own element and will continue as long as the cash lasts.

Strategic Review - Rudy Giuliani leading the pack?

2008-01-09T05:07:00.000-08:00

As in any endeavor and with the depth of experience of Governor Romney, strategic reviews and tweaks are a constant. Some call it " white boarding," where you look at what you know today and redefine your strategy to adapt to the current dynamics to achieve success. Governor Romney spoke with Hugh Hewitt last night and made some interesting statements with regard to the state of the race and how dynamics are different. Rudy Giuliani is no longer the Republican frontrunner, in fact there isn't one. Hence, the needed early state strategic victories, although it would be nice to claim, are not necessary to the strategy to win the nomination. Therefore, the campaign adopts an alternate strategy and Mitt, given the depth of his support and resources is keenly positioned to stay the course and emerge as the frontrunner.

Scorecard - Updated Delegate Count

2008-01-09T04:48:00.000-08:00

The latest Delegate count can be found HERE. It looks as if Romney is leading with 30, followed by Huckabee at 21, McCain at 10, Thompson with 6, Ron Paul with 2 and Giuliani and Hunter each tied with 1.

A Non-MSM Veiwpoint - The Republican Campaign for POTUS

2008-01-08T20:33:00.000-08:00

We now have 3 states in the compressed political calendar under our belt. What does it all mean? Hugh Hewitt gives a good summary HERE.

New Hampshire
With 84% of the precincts reporting, John McCain has won the New Hampshire Primary with 37% of the votes cast and Mitt Romney took second with 32%. The rest of the field included Mike Huckabee with 11%, Rudy Giuliani at 9%, Ron Paul with 8% and Fred Thompson with 1%. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton won with 39% and Barack Obama took second with 37%. Why compare both sides of the aisle and what does it mean?

Nearly 40% of those voting in the New Hampshire Primary are Independents and can vote in either the Republican or Democratic election. In recent press interviews of those attending Obama and McCain rallies, a sample of those interviewed stated they were wrestling with a vote for Obama, Edwards or McCain. Really? It reminds me of the song on Sesame Street, which of these things don't go together. The Independents were those that were either going to sway the vote for Obama over Clinton or McCain over Romney.

How does all of this fit? If you consider the above facts and the tight margin between McCain and Romney it becomes apparent that the Independents cast their votes for McCain, leading to his victory and away from Obama, leading to his loss to Hillary. Further noted, that turnout in NH was high on the Democratic side and that the precincts were running out of ballots early, which may also have pushed more Independents to McCain. At the end of the day, in a pure Republican race, Mitt Romney may well have led John McCain in NH.

Considering Fred's showing, it is likely that he will literally limp to South Carolina. As for Messrs. Huckabee and Giuliani, very close.

Iowa
For reasons stated in the previous post on What happened in Iowa, the singular surge of evangelicals changed the course away from the core Republican vote, leading to a Huckabee victory. In the constant sense and analysis, again Mitt Romney won the core Republican vote.

Wyoming
A pure Republican caucus, but ignored by many, Mitt Romney won by a significant margin, with Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter following.

It is truly a wide open race on the Republican side with no clear frontrunner! The current inside viewpoint and analysis is that Mitt Romney has won one gold and two silvers, while McCain and Huckabee have won one gold (and Huckabee's bronze in NH). Rudy is holding fast to his original strategy and Fred, well?

Currently Mitt leads the delegate count with 26 pre-NH (see Hewitt post), and will continue to lead in the delegate count post-NH, as the delegates awarded in NH will be nearly the same between McCain and Romney, given the close proximity of the vote.

On to Michigan with strong support. Wednesday will bring some interesting press. Expectations from the pundits and press are that Mitt is cooked and can't raise anymore money, not even $100,000. Wait for the end of Wednesday. Again, it will be self evident that not only is Mitt the most qualified for POTUS, but his successes in the early states have yet to be matched by any one candidate, and he continues to be the only candidate with strong financial backing, both in supporters and personal wealth. There are 500+ here for National Call Day. I think we will exceed the $100,000 bar set by the press.

Rather than being defeated, the Romney supporters tonight have been strengthened in their resolve to stand for what is right and what is necessary for our country, a Romney Presidency. It is another interesting point how the MSM and Republican candidates want Mitt out of the race, quickly, when in fact his resume and capacities far exceed those of all other candidates. Tell me one other candidate who has finished with 2 silvers and 1 gold that the MSM and pundits are saying is cooked. The ganging up of so many to alter the course of the race is disheartening and further validates the need to end the cynicism of society. Oh well, we press forward with confidence and strength. Just watch how things turn.

Defining Moments - Our Future!

2008-01-07T00:20:00.000-08:00

We are facing a Defining Moment in our country as we choose our next President. The current commotion in our society, amid contrary winds, pose significant challenges to our nation and those who lead us. It remains with the electorate to choose our President, which is somewhat troubling given the cynicism in our society. Hence the defining moment of our day. Unfortunately, this cynicism is not only reflected in society, but critically it is reflected primarily in the leadership of our nation and in the attitudes of most of the Presidential candidates, be they Republican or Democrat. As evidenced in the ABC Debates last Saturday, the prideful and cynical attitudes of our "politicians" were self evident and disturbing at best. Specifically, in the Republican debate we suffered through the childish, immature and cynical attitudes of selected candidates. It was truly distressing to watch. Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul remained above the fray, choosing the serious course of considering critical issues facing our society. To the others in the debate, they chose to dilute the dialog and distill critical moments to childish barbs and personal attacks. What was even more distressing was the delight they took in doing so, with reaffirming glances to each other. It was very interesting how cynical and prideful Mike Huckabee, our Southern Baptist Minister, was Saturday night. It is expected of John McCain, for his character and nature in this regard have been unchanged since previous Presidential pursuits. Even so, it was embarrassing and disheartening.

It was no less distressing on Sunday's talk shows, ABC This Week and Meet the Press, where Mike Huckabee and John McCain continued in their pride and cynicism. Specifically, when confronted by George Stephanopoulos where he caught Mike Huckabee in a clear and definable contradiction, Mike Huckabee persisted in denying the contradiction and refusing to acknowledge his mistake. It couldn't have been more plain. Pride in its most debilitating moment. See below

"That's a pretty clear contradiction. … you didn’t say you supported the surge, you said, 'I'm not sure that I support the troop surge.' … according to this evidence you did not support the surge before Mitt Romney. … I don't know how you can have it both ways on that, Governor." – ABC's George Stephanopoulos

John McCain was no less than Mike Huckabee when confronted by Tim Russert on his contradictions with the Bush Tax Cuts and amnesty. Can't either admit their mistakes? Unlike Mitt Romney who is willing to admit to mistakes as contradictions arise, which they will from time to time, and offering clarity to resolve confusion, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and others fail the test miserably. We cannot afford in these critical times for stubborn pride and cynicism in our Presidential leadership. In fact, we need honorable and humble men who understand who they represent and on whom they rely, for all of us derive our strength, capacity and capability from our God and those whom we serve. We need a President who is strong and resolute, but cognizant of who they are, on whom they rely and who they serve. For Mike Huckabee or John McCain, it isn't about them, it is about our nation and its citizens. That should be why they are running for President. This isn't about vanity and self aggrandizement. The call of POTUS is to serve and to lead our nation honorably, in humility and strength, with the operative word being lead.

On Sunday night, we had the opportunity to observe another Presidential Forum with each of the leading Republican candidates for POTUS where each had an opportunity to truly discuss and debate the issues facing our nation. It was less cynical, thankfully. However, I believe the cynicism was suppressed given the reaction and outcry to Saturday's childish antics. Notwithstanding, I don't believe that Mike Huckabee or John McCain are any less cynical because of suppressed behavior, for it is clearly evident in their past attitudes and actions. One night does not reflect a repentant or character change.

It must be said, given recent polls and successes of Ron Paul, his exclusion from this forum was not appropriate. Even so, I did appreciate the additional time offered to those attending as it afforded greater exposure to their views and capacities. Fox News could have accommodated in another way without excluding Dr. Paul, with more time for the broadcast and less punditry.

The results of the evening were stark and clarifying in distinguishing the most capable and electable Republican candidate, Mitt Romney (see the reactions below). Mitt Romney, for innumerable reasons, stood out among his peers. His depth of experience, integrity, knowledge and ability to understand and assimilate data and information, his decision making abilities, and articulation of the critical issues facing our nation were self evident tonight. Mike Huckabee proved he is well out of the league of Presidential contenders. John McCain lacks the experience and capacity to fully understand the complexities of economies and immigration, although he is well versed on national security matters. Even so, we need someone who is well versed in leadership experience on more than national security. John McCain would make a great Secretary of Defense, but not President of the United States. Fred Thompson was insightful, but lethargic. Maybe Attorney General. Rudy Giuliani was enlightening, but lacks the conservative credentials on economic, immigration and non-security issues. Further, he is not aligned with the social conservative values of the Republican Party.

Mitt Romney stands above the crowded field and proved it Sunday night. He is the most effective of the candidates and it is time for his detractors within the party to begin to unify and cease their inappropriate labeling. It is not too late, but if Senator McCain and others continue their course, they will have crossed a line that makes the unification process more difficult. It is time to call an end to personal attacks and labeling, and focus purely on the issues and differences between the candidates.

Mitt Romney is resolute and not what John McCain and others have painted him to be. He is a man of integrity and constancy in that which matters most to Americans. Finally, we are not choosing the lesser of two evils when choosing a candidate. In Mitt Romney, we have an individual who has credibility, capacity, ability and capability to lead our nation with experience, optimism, strength, humility and hope. One in whom we can trust to honor America and serve all Americans, not for his own glory, but out of duty and love for that which God has entrusted to our nation, the preservation and advocacy of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - freedom.

He understands the complexities of what we face in radical jihad, global economic dynamics, education, entitlements, education, taxes, energy independence, et.al. May we stand together as a united nation, to remain as the hope of the world.

Republican Debate or Childish Play?

2008-01-05T22:36:00.001-08:00

Simply put, it was nice to have an adult in the room. The true character of a man is manifest in times of stress and when all things are in commotion. Tonight in the Republican "Debate," Mitt Romney stood as the one candidate in the Republican field with character, integrity and respect for the office he seeks. He is intelligent and capable to lead, and it was self evident this evening. Amid the childish and immature barbs thrust at him by an angry and mean spirited John McCain and an ignorant and immature Mike Huckabee, Mitt was respectful, responsible and resolute in elevating the dialog to the stature of the office he seeks. He stood the challenge well without digressing into the worlds of McCain and Huckabee.

John McCain and Mike Huckabee were an embarrassment to the office they seek, and without the capacity to speak intelligently about the issues facing our nation, they dissolved into childish and immature personal attacks and took absolute glee and pride in their immaturity. I was pleased to see their true colors and lack of character on display as it is foretelling of their nature. I was embarrassed for the Republican Party, as it reflected poorly on the Republican electorate that supports them. Although Rudy and Fred participated in the childish attacks, they did so wanting to be a part of the "me too" crowd. In spite of such Fred at least spoke to issues with intelligence and may well have helped himself somewhat tonight. Rudy was Rudy and added value on some points, but didn't really stand out. John McCain and Mike Huckabee had their Howard Dean moments tonight and it should become evident on Tuesday. I am anxious to be in New Hampshire to enjoy the moment.

The only other candidate, besides Mitt Romney, who showed respect for the office of POTUS and the process of reasonable debate was Ron Paul. Amazing!

What Happened In Iowa, What Does It Mean and Where Do We Go From Here!

2008-01-04T23:03:00.000-08:00

Many have wondered what happened in Iowa, what it means and where we go from here. With some brevity, here are some thoughts.

What Happened in Iowa -
Governor Huckabee rallied two critical grass roots groups, the evangelical Christians with their home schooling networks, and the fair tax advocates. As to the evangelicals, some interesting statistics can be found here and here. In summary, the turnout for the Republican Iowa Caucus was nearly 50% higher than the previous Caucus with a 125,000 record turn out. It was expected that the turnout would be about 75,000-80,000 with the unknown being the evangelical and fair tax groups. Had such been the case, Mitt would have won Iowa with his stable and strong support. It wasn't to be. Of the 35% that voted for Mike Huckabee, 80% claimed the label of evangelical Christians. Upon further inquiry, a large majority of the evangelicals stated that the most important measure of the candidate was whether his faith and religion were aligned with theirs. Mitt being Mormon was catalytic to their rally around Mike. They further indicated that only 7% felt Governor Huckabee was electable and only 10% felt he had the necessary leadership experience to be POTUS. Unfortunately, a very sad commentary on the failings of the Iowa evangelicals, that they would vote principally on the basis of religion. I must say, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, my support of Governor Romney is first and foremost on his character, leadership, experience and competency, while appreciating, albeit nominally that he is LDS. Surely, I wouldn't vote for Harry Reid or even Orrin Hatch because they are members of my faith.

An interesting statistic quoted in The Corner, of the non-evangelical vote, Mike Huckabee took 4th among the Republican candidates, an indication of where he will stand in New Hampshire and in most states. It was apparent with the turnout that in spite of good and solid support for Governor Romney, he couldn't overcome the ignorant voting practices of the dominant evangelical community. Even so, it has been written that not all evangelicals take to the same course of the Iowa evangelical community, which may bode poorly for Governor Huckabee in other religious settings. Surely he will try.

What Does Iowa Mean -
Given the measure of impact by a singular group of religious voters, the results in Iowa are of little consequence to Governor Romney. He won the votes of the issues based voters in Iowa and is the only Republican candidate who is competitive in all early states and nationally. Some other interesting statistics:

No Republican who finished lower than 3rd place in the Iowa Caucus has gone on to win the party's nomination. Only once (1988) did a third-place finisher (George HW Bush) go on to win the nomination. (Doesn't bode well for Rudy)
No candidate who finished with less than 18% of the vote at the Iowa Caucuses has ever won the nomination (also 1988). (Doesn't bode well for Fred or John)
George HW Bush lost the 1988 Caucus by 20,467 votes (19%) yet went on to win the nomination. Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa Caucus by 2,182 votes (2.1%) yet won the nomination. (Bodes well for Mitt)

Where Do We Go From Here -
As noted above, Governor Romney is the only Republican candidate that is competitive in all early state primaries/caucuses. An interesting analysis by the political wonks offers further credence to Mitt Romney's campaign and his electability (see below).

Mitt Romney is competitive in all states and has a deep well of financial resource, both from donors and his personal wealth to engage a national campaign. He is the only candidate who represents the Reagan Coalition of a strong military, strong economy and strong families, in spite of Ed Rollins (Huckabee's campaign chairman) stating the Reagan Coalition is dead. Mitt is the only candidate with significant and successful leadership experience in private, philanthropic and government enterprise. Although criticized for his personal self made wealth, I want a candidate who has succeeded on principles of integrity, intelligence and hard work. Mitt Romney represents the agent of change to fix Washington without being inside Washington. Mitt Romney surrounds himself with bright and intelligent people to lead teams and execute on strategic initiatives that he and his team develop.

John McCain is out of money and is borrowing heavily to stay in the race, and is further considering matching funds which all but sinks his ability to compete in a general election; John McCain is only competitive in New Hampshire and it has become his firewall; John McCain is currently leading in the New Hampshire polls (within the margin of error), but is without a strategy beyond New Hampshire; John McCain benefited from Huckabee's Iowa victory, but was counter punched with Obama's win, as the Independent and Democratic moderates will likely vote Democratic in New Hampshire rather than rally to McCain, a source of his strong polls. A great American, but not a great Republican (gang of 14). And let's not forget the Keating Five, which causes some consternation on ethical lapses. John McCain has poorly managed and led his Presidential Campaign.

Rudy Giuliani is lagging seriously in all early state elections and has very little money to engage a national campaign; Rudy Giuliani, albeit strong on executive experience, has been challenged with ethical and judgment issues; Rudy Giuliani does not reflect social conservative values or principles; Rudy Giuliani left New York City in financial disarray, as stated by Michael Bloomberg, with a deficit exceeding $2 billion - Rudy is not a fiscal conservative. Rudy Giuliani has not surrounded himself with strong leadership and has governed as mayor in a self absorbed and dictatorial fashion.

Mike Huckabee is a social conservative but a moderate to liberal advocate on fiscal and foreign policy matters; Mike Huckabee's gubernatorial service was fraught with ethical violations, significant growth of the Arkansas government and fiscal budgetary expansion of greater than 100%; Mike Huckabee is ignorant to foreign policy matters and appears to inform his policies with what he reads in the newspapers, when he reads them. Not very intelligent, but politically astute, Mike Huckabee has not selected or surrounded himself with bright leadership. In fact, he has chosen Ed Rollins to chair his campaign - not much else need be said. Mike Huckabee, albeit affable, has little to offer other than quaint phrases and well-timed humorous punchlines - He is not well informed on matters of critical importance and thus not fit to lead our nation. Mike Huckabee is running for President as a Christian, not as a leader who happens to be a Christian, there is a stark difference. Mike Huckabee is without significant financial resources to carry his campaign beyond New Hampshire or South Carolina.

Fred Thompson is a consistent conservative, a good actor, and was an average Senator. Fred Thompson doesn't have the financial resources to continue his campaign and is in effect broke. Without any leadership experience, Fred Thompson is firm in his convictions and Federalist policies. Likeable and deliberate in thought, Fred Thompson seems to be running a vanity campaign rather than a campaign to serve our nation. Not very well spoken, nor energetic, Fred Thompson seems to be a mediocre candidate with little to show of success other than his career in Hollywood. Too casual for me, and I believe for most Americans.

With the above comparative, Mitt Romney presses forward as he stated, having finished the first of fifty innings. He is in it to win and is the most credible and viable candidate to lead the Republican Party. Does he need to win New Hampshire? Not necessarily. Although a win would be nice, a strong finish is what matters. Ultimately, the Republican race for President will distill down to two candidates, Mitt Romney and either John McCain (if he garners momentum out of New Hampshire) or Rudy Giuliani (if he can hang on until February 5th as he will be out of the media and Presidential dialog until then).

Mitt needs the continued support, both financially and politically, of each of us. I solicit your support on his behalf and look with anticipation to the nomination on September 4th in Minnesota.

Religious Tolerance - No Litmus Test!

2008-01-04T00:52:00.001-08:00

A new documentary is coming out in 10 days that is a must see. Click HERE to see the trailer. It is entitled Article VI, Faith. Politics. America. I would encourage all to view it as the political season is underway!

Interesting Iowa/New Hampshire Factoids

2008-01-03T22:06:00.000-08:00

Some interesting factoids about the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary -

Three of the past five winners of the GOP caucuses have gone on the win the nomination.

Of the 13 contested caucuses in both parties since 1972, eight times (61%) the winner of the caucus has gone on to win his party’s nomination.

No Republican who finished lower than 3rd place in the Iowa caucus has gone on to win the party’s nomination. Only once (1988) did a third-placed finisher (George H.W. Bush) go on to win the nomination.

No candidate who finished with less than 18% of the vote at the Iowa caucuses has ever won the nomination (also 1988).

George H.W. Bush lost the 1988 Iowa caucus by 20,467 votes (19%) yet went on to win the nomination. Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa caucus by 2,182 votes (2.1%) yet won the nomination.

With the exception of Bill Clinton in 1992, every major party nominee who lost Iowa went on to win New Hampshire.

The largest victory margin of the Iowa caucus was Bob Dole’s 13,900-vote win (12.8%) in 1988. The narrowest previous victory margin was George H.W. Bush with 2,182 votes (2.1%) over Reagan in 1980.

The previous high for turnout was 108,806 in 1988, and the previous low was 87,666 in 2000.

Bob Dole garnered the most votes of any GOP candidate in the Iowa caucuses—40,661 votes in 1988.

Only GOP incumbent presidents (Bush 2004, Bush 1992, Reagan 1984, Ford 1976) have ever carried both Iowa and New Hampshire. No non-incumbent GOP candidate has ever carried both.

Since 1988, every successful GOP presidential nominee has won at least 2 out of 3 of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Disappointed, but surely not Disheartened!

2008-01-03T21:20:00.000-08:00

The results are in and unfortunately Mike Huckabee has won the Iowa Caucus. With an estimated 114,000 voters in the Republican Caucus, it is apparent that Governor Huckabee's grass roots supporters (Evangelical Christian Community, Home Schoolers and Fair Tax advocates) rallied beyond the expectations of the political insiders. Congratulations to Governor Huckabee. Surely, we are disappointed, but not disheartened.

Not to take anything away from Governor Huckabee's victory, but it was an insurmountable hurdle for Mitt. Unfortunate as it is, it is a stark reminder of religious bigotry in our Country, evident in the cynical and duplicitous commentaries of Governor Huckabee and the innumerable anti-Mormon commentaries and rhetoric on the Governor's official blog, that is further grounded in the evangelical Christian movement.

"A significant chunk of Huckabee supporters - eight in 10 - said they are born again or evangelical Christians, compared to less than half of Romney's backers. Nearly two-thirds of Huckabee voters also said it was very important that their candidate share their religious beliefs, compared to about one in five of Romney's." Glen Johnson, My Way Blog

Although, not fully disclosed and further evidenced by the activities of the TrustHuckabee organization, that those supporters of Mike Huckabee have also taken to low road tactics in anti-Mormon and anti-Mitt push polls. Appreciating Governor Huckabee's resolve to run a positive and high road campaign, I can't help but be cynical and distrusting of the man. The sly statements of ignorance about LDS beliefs with an innocent and inflammatory doctrinal question used typically to smear the Church, juxtaposed against Governor Huckabee's leadership at the Southern Baptist Convention against the LDS faith; or, the ad attacking Mitt Romney's honesty and integrity (not on issues) which he chose not to run, but presented to the national media, and ran in Iowa anyway; or the inability to silence his ardent financiers and supporters in the TrustHuckabee organization who have undertaken negative and inappropriate push-poll practices; or his snide commentaries at every turn that attack the character of Mitt Romney, and on and on.

I apologize in this post for vetting, but it is difficult to standby and watch the duplicity, the dishonesty and the mean-spirit of one who claims to be a good Christian, for the guile within Mike Huckabee is self evident.

With that being said, we are renewed in our resolve to assure that the one state success of one who is not worthy of the honor of being a conservative (for reasons noted in previous posts) is not repeated.

A Fair and Accurate Review of the Republican Race for POTUS!

2007-12-27T23:38:00.000-08:00

Matt Lewis (Townhall blog) has provided a fair and accurate summary of the current Republican race for the nomination, click HERE. From an objective perspective, he is spot on. That being said, given certain internal dynamics, I am convinced that Mitt Romney (who most controls his future according Matt) will carry the day in Iowa and New Hampshire, and on to the nomination.

An interesting post from Jeff Fuller at Iowans for Romney, which lends credence to Romney's strength in Iowa and his likely victory!

It's about Leadership!

2007-12-24T12:39:00.000-08:00

If there is any doubt about who is best qualified to lead our nation amid the commotion of our day, be it radical jihad, entitlements and spending, global economic opportunities and threats, illegal immigration, national security, the degradation of the family, US educational plateaus or the situational standards of society; one only need look to the candidate who is able to bring together the best and the brightest and lead with principles of integrity! It is critical for any candidate seeking the office of POTUS to be grounded in core principles and values that are consistent with the electorate. Such principles are evidenced in the lives of the candidates, and can be simply observed in their personal and professional lives.

Even so, it's all about building dynamic leadership teams that can address the challenges we face as a nation, drawing strength and direction from the values and principles of the President, and recognizing that no one President is able to do what needs to be done alone. Hence, the call of Leadership, to govern with vision, principles of success, ethics, communication and capacity.

An interesting comparative -

Republican Candidates

Mitt Romney - Governor Romney's history provides a significant perspective on building dynamic leadership teams, whether in private and philanthropic enterprises or public service. His successes in business are legendary, and the teams he led for 25 years to turnaround innumerable and significant business are supportive of his candidacy, with little if any exception. His success in bringing together the needed leadership resources to turnaround the 2002 Olympics, is equally legendary. And, again, those whom he led in this endeavor support his candidacy, with little if any exception. And, as Governor of Massachusetts, he brought together critical resources to turnaround the Commonwealth, and those whom he led in this endeavor support his candidacy, with little if any exception. After 40 years of experience in business, philanthropy and government, Mitt Romney has built, with breadth, key and critical resources to lead important initiatives for change. They stand with him today, a statement that no other candidate can make who is running for the office of POTUS. What is of further interest; after 40 years the one thing that can be said of Governor Romney, is that he is a man of integrity, high moral standards and ethics, a man of great character. He has led with principles of honor and success, and without compromise to his ethics and integrity. Mitt Romney brings in the best and brightest to make a difference. Why is it that the Democrats are more opposed to, and critical of Governor Romney than any other Republican candidate?

Mike Huckabee - We can look to Governor Huckabee's 10 1/2 years in Arkansas to see how well he governed and built effective teams to bring critical and needed changes for Arkansans. Amid innumerable ethics charges and violations, compromises to Governor Huckabee personal integrity (questionable compensation outside of his gubernatorial position), and lack of support from his Republican constituency, it appears that his leadership in Arkansas was significantly lacking. I can understand as a Republican Governor that the Democratic leadership and biased media in Arkansas would be opposed to Governor Huckabee's Presidential candidacy, as it would speak to his principled leadership as a Republican. But, when Governor Huckabee's strongest opponents are the Republican leadership in Arkansas, it speaks volumes to the lack of leadership. It is also illustrative that he has been a rogue in the Republican Party, without engendering needed support. What greater illustration is there of failing to build dynamic leadership teams within the principles that he stands for? Mike Huckabee brings in those who make him feel good and lift him up.

Rudy Giuliani - We have a great opportunity to look at the capacities of Mayor Giuliani, and with whom he chose to bring into his leadership teams. It is apparent that he surrounded himself with those he trusted most; Bernard Kerik comes to mind. To his credit, he and his team accomplished a lot in his mayoral reign. The question one must ask, is at what cost? Surely, ethics were challenged, principles of integrity were questioned, and he surely didn't engender the support of his constituency in his dictatorial approach ('my way or the highway'). It was more about Rudy than it was about his team; why else was Commissioner Bratten dismissed as Police Commissioner. Looking beyond his crisis management of 9/11, the precedence established in his leadership was one of a dictatorial and conflicted reign where his constituency of New York City held him in low esteem. If his leadership were held in high esteem by his NYC colleagues, it would be self evident in the depth of his team, which is principally a small group held tightly in Giuliani Partners. Rudy Giuliani brings in those who honor him.

John McCain - Without any history of leading or governing, only legislating, Senator McCain is an unknown quantity and it is difficult to know who he might engage on his team. We do know who he has invited into the inner sanctum of his campaign, initially, subsequently and currently. Senator McCain has had anything but constancy of leadership within his campaign, nor has he been able to lead with confidence, evidenced by the rampant spending and misplaced trust in his campaign leadership. What is certain is that he is without needed leadership/governing experience, specific to being POTUS. However, John McCain would bring in those who would stand with him in defense of America, but would not challenge his positions.

Fred Thompson - Without any history of leading or governing, only legislating, Mr. Thompson is an unknown quantity and it is difficult to know who he might engage on his team. We can look to his Presidential campaign for a glimpse into his ability to lead a dynamic team for an intended purpose. The fits and starts and lethargy of his campaign are good indicators of his leadership. Mr. Thompson has not had any consistency in his campaign leadership, notwithstanding his claim of being the consistent conservative. Another indicator his resident in his decisiveness (how long did it take him to commit to run?) What is certain is that he is without needed experience in leadership. It is hard to know who Fred Thompson would call on.

Duncan Hunter - Without any history of leading or governing, only legislating, Mr. Hunter is an unknown quantity and it is difficult to know who he might engage on his team. What is certain is that he is without needed experience in leadership.

Ron Paul - Without any history of leading or governing, only legislating, Dr. Paul is an unknown quantity and it is difficult to know who he might engage on his team. What is certain is that he is without needed experience in leadership.

Democratic Candidates

Hillary Clinton - Without any history of leading or governing, only legislating, Senator Clinton is an unknown quantity and it is difficult to know who she might engage on her team. What is certain is that she would hope to resurrect the Bill Clinton team to govern, a team fraught with ethics and integrity challenges. That presupposes she could garner their support, as most have been in opposition to the Clinton's since they left the administration, in fact many are supportive of Barack Obama. For certain, having never led any enterprise, she is without needed experience in leadership. An interesting study would be to list all who have worked with, or served with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and pose the question, do they support them today? A long list to cull through, but a very short list of those still supportive. I suppose we can count Sandy Berger among the supporters.

Barack Obama - Without any history of leading or governing, only legislating, Senator Obama is an unknown quantity and it is difficult to know who he might engage on his team. He is a man of character and honesty, but to what end. He has recently surrounded himself with many who were associated with Bill Clinton. That doesn't speak well to principles of integrity and ethics. What is certain is that he has never led an organization and is ill-equipped to do so, being without needed experience in leadership.

John Edwards - Without any history of leading or governing, only legislating, Mr. Edwards is an unknown quantity and it is difficult to know who he might engage on his team. What is certain is that he is without needed experience in leadership.

Bill Richardson - As a Governor, we can observe and study his successes and failures in New Mexico. We can further look to his experience in leadership elsewhere. Governor Richardson is by far the Democratic candidate with the deepest leadership experience. Notwithstanding his leadership experience, he has not been able to build deep resourced teams to govern New Mexico. Given limited resources and challenged policies, it is hard to give credence to his candidacy.

Joe Biden - Without any history of leading or governing, only legislating, Senator Biden is an unknown quantity and it is difficult to know who he might engage on his team. What is certain is that he is without needed experience in leadership.

Christopher Dodd - Without any history of leading or governing, only legislating, Senator Dodd is an unknown quantity and it is difficult to know who he might engage on his team. What is certain is that he is without needed experience in leadership.