Orgy Of Self-Seeking Reveals GOP Void Of Statesmanship

Profound article recently written by Alan Keyes:

With the withdrawal of Dede Scozzafava from contention in the special election in NY's 23rd Congressional District, we see a clear result of implementing Michael Steele's infamous 80/20 approach to candidate selection. Grassroots conservatives still hampered by their allegiance to the Republican Party need to consider the lessons to be drawn from the Republican party's disappearance from that race. Scozzafava was a candidate typical of the predilections of GOP Party bosses and the majority of its big money fundraisers. They believe that the Party's formula for political victory requires people who oppose or just give lip service to conservative stands on the issues of moral principle, like respect for the unalienable right to life and defense of the natural family, but embrace conservative positions on other fronts, especially when it comes to money issues.

But the problem with candidates like Scozzafava is the priorities they represent. Her eager endorsement of the Obama faction Democrat in the race points to the truth. In principal, politicians like her are in tune with the moral and intellectual culture of the leftist Democrats. Their election stands on money issues are a matter of cynical political calculation. In this respect they are exactly what the left has always accused Republicans of being- people willing to sacrifice issues of human life and dignity to win power.

They put money ahead of every other consideration. Then in order to prove that they aren't just promoters of heartless greed and selfishness, they pander to politically correct notions of "tolerance" and "sensitivity" with their stands on issues that involve respect for human nature and moral responsibility. Newt Gingrich cited her stands on the money issues in the statement reported in an article at politico.com "warning conservative activists that their support for a third-party candidate in a key upcoming New York Special election is a "mistake." The former Georgia congressman then rattled off a list of Scozzafava's conservative credentials. "She has signed a no tax increase pledge. She is endorsed by the National Rifle Association. She has come out against cap and trade…She is opposed to the Obama health care plan. She will vote for John Boehner instead of Nancy Pelosi," Gingrich said. "All of those things together make her – it seems to me – a legitimate, authentic, Republican nominee.'"

Former U.S. House speaker Gingrich wants to make it crystal clear that conservative stands on issues of moral principle are not an essential part of the Republican identity. So long as a candidate is right on the issues of money and power, that's all that matters. In a CNN interview the present Minority Leader in the House, John Boehner, took pains to make a similar point. "Clearly she would be on the left side of our party," said Boehner, who had financially supported the campaign of the New York assemblywoman. "...We accept moderates in our party and we want moderates in our party." He then went on to reject the notion that Scozzafava's failure had anything to do with "pressure by the conservative "Tea Party" movement, citing his participation at rallies in Bakersfield, Calif., and Ohio…. I've work with these people, and what they're concerned about is the growing size of government. They want someone who's really going to actively reduce spending and reduce control here in Washington."

Even as their nominee falls prey to the revulsion caused by her denial of the moral principles of liberty, these GOP leaders want to pretend that the angry uprising caused by the Obama faction's betrayal of American values has nothing to do with moral concerns. They desperately want the votes and power that angry uprising may deliver. But they don't want to represent Americans who know in their hearts that the Obama threat isn't just about money or the usual Washington power grab. It represents a profound destruction of the whole American way of life, destruction rooted in Obama's rejection of the moral idea of God-given individual rights, and constitutional government based on the consent of the people.

The battle with the Obama faction is in the end a struggle to determine whether this moral concept of humanity will continue to be the basis for American government, or whether it will be replaced by a moral vision that discards the whole idea of a distinctive human nature so that human beings can be treated simply as objects for manipulation by an all powerful administrative state. At the grassroots many Americans, regardless of political labels, instinctively grasp what is at stake. They long for leaders who also understand, and will rise to defend the moral idea of America, from which so many have gained inspiration and hope, and for which so many have risked or given their lives.

An appreciation for this longing has been a hallmark of American statesmanship when leaders arose in response to the crises of the past. The Republican Party's founding President, Abraham Lincoln, understood and spoke to it as he represented and articulated the moral causes of the American Civil War. But GOP leaders today not only lack the depth for such statesmanship, they appear utterly devoid of any sense of the compassionate concern for humanity from which it arises.

Their preference for so-called "moderates" proves the point. What is moderate about rejecting the natural right of human family life in order to accept a paradigm of human sexuality freed from the responsible discipline of human procreation? What is moderate about rejecting the idea of natural, and therefore inherent, human rights in order to accept a so-called "right" to murder our offspring? This disregard for the natural obligation that binds one generation to the next is precisely what leads to the disgusting orgy of self-seeking that is piling a Mount Everest of debt onto the backs of our posterity with no regard for the national servitude it represents.

Why should we expect people who claim the right to avoid their present responsibilities by killing their living offspring to care about the harm they do to the generations yet unborn? Why should we expect people encouraged to justify such murder with arguments about the inferior "quality" of the life they destroy to stop at similarly discarding the elderly when age takes the shine from their physical existence? If the idea of humanity doesn't prevent murder in the womb, all the more reason it should not prevail against the murder of those whose life declines toward death.

The idea of "moderation" touted by the GOP leadership orphans the very idea of humanity, and with it the fellow feeling (compassion) that should stay the hand from murder and neglect, especially when the victims include our offspring or the parents who engendered our lives. It rejects the disciplined understanding of liberty that made successful constitutional self-government possible in the United States.

By accepting an idea of right that limited and disciplined our choice, we became a people capable of doing what the scoffing philosophers thought impossible- establishing a government of, by and for the people that promotes order and prosperous decency rather than licentious self-destruction. This is true moderation. Real moderates, therefore, will not support people like Scozzafava, or the covert Scozzafavas the cynical, self-seeking GOP leadership insists on foisting off as "conservatives." They will instead seek out representatives who work to conserve the American idea of right. This is the heart and soul of the conservative cause, which in the end is just the cause of lasting liberty.

WYSIWYG: Experience Matters

This post is a brief comparison of a few select presidents. I compare the pre-presidential governmental experiences of a few past presidents with that of Barack Obama.

George Washington:
- Major, military district of Virginia (1752)
- Lieutenant Colonel in the French and Indian Wars (1754-58)
- Commander in Chief, Virginia Forces (1755-58)
- Virginia House of Burgesses (1758-1774)
- Justice of the Peace (1760-1774)
- Member of the First Continental Congress (1774)
- Member of the Second Continental Congress (1775)
- Commander of the Continental army (1775-1783)
- President of the Constitutional Convention (1787)
- First President of the United States (1789-1796)

Thomas Jefferson:
- Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses (1769-74)
- Member of the Second Continental Congress (1775-76)
- Primary Author of the Declaration of Independence (1776)
- Member of the Virginia House of Delegates (1776-1779)
- Governor of Virginia (1779-1781)
- Member of Confederation Congress (1783-1784)
- Minister to France (1785-1788)
- Secretary of State (1789-1793)
- Vice President of the United States (1797-1801)
- President of the United States (1801-1809)

Abraham Lincoln:
- Short military service: enlisted man in the Black Hawk War, captain of a company of volunteers, private in the mounted Rangers, and member of the Independent Spy Corps
- Postmaster of New Salem (1833-36)
- Served four terms in the Illinois legislature (1834-1841) as a Whig
- Opened his own law firm in Springfield, Illinois with several partners (1837)
- US House of Representative (1847-49)
- Received a patent for a device “to buoy vessels over shoals” (1849)
- Appeared before the Illinois Supreme Court 175 times, 51 times as sole counsel and of which 31 were decided in his favor
- Accepted the Republican nomination for Senate in 1858
- Elected 16th President of the United States (1860)

Theodore Roosevelt:
- Wrote and published The Naval War of 1812 (1882); published a total of 13 books before becoming President of the United States
- New York State Assemblyman for three one-year terms (1881-1884)
- Deputy Sherriff in the Dakota Territory
- U.S. Civil Service Commissioner, Washington (1889-1895)
- President of the board of New York City Police Commissioners (1895-1897)
- Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1897); prepared the Navy for Spanish-American War
- Formed the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, known as the “Rough Riders,” and served as its Lieutenant-Colonel earning himself a posthumous Medal of Honor in 2001
- Governor of New York (1898- 1900)
- Vice President of the United States (1900)
- President of the United States (1901-1909)

Barack Obama:
- Attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years; transferred to Columbia University in New York and graduated in 1983 with a degree in political science
- Community organizer with low-income residents in Chicago’s Roseland community and public housing developments on Chicago’s south side (1985-1988)
- Attended Harvard Law School (1988-91); first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review
- Civil Rights Lawyer for Miner, Barnhill & Galland in Chicago (1993-96)
- Lecturer of Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School (1992-96), and a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004 during which he worked part-time teaching 3 courses per year
- Organized “Project Vote” for the voter registration drive for the 1992 presidential campaign (April to October)
- Won a Grammy for the audio version of his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
- Elected Illinois State Senator (1996) after the only other candidate dropped out of the race; served three terms (1997-2004)
- United States Senator (2005-08); missed 82 of his chamber’s 346 (23.7%) votes during the two-year session while campaigning for the office of president
- Published The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (2006)
- Elected 44th President of the United States (2008)


It is not necessary to highlight the steady diminution in patriotic and governmental service of those seeking the office of the president, even though this list is quite brief. But what I do attempt to explain, though trying to avoid oversimplification, is the significance of knowing exactly who you are voting for. President Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and all the others did not know what would be encountered during their years in the White House. But in a providential way, their early governmental experiences prepared each for the challenges they encountered. The collective governing record of Barack Obama is an unfortunate harbinger of social, economical and legislative rulings to come, and it is we the voters who will pay the price. And nine months into his reign, it is already a historically lavish price tag for us and future generations.

Where's The Letter Czar When You Need Him?

The Department of Health and Human Services placed a gag order preventing private health insurance companies from communicating to their Medicare Advantage customers how the pending health care legislation, if passed, could impact them. Last week, Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Chairman, ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana Inc. for sending out a mailer to its Advantage plan customers (senior citizens) that mislead and “confused beneficiaries.”

Mr. Blum, the acting director of a regulatory office in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), informed Humana of its investigations, and further banned all Advantage contractors from informing their customers what Congress is currently debating and discussing regarding health care.

But it gets better. Who is Mr. Blum? The former senior aide to Mr. Baucus, former health care policy adviser on Obama’s transition team, and now the acting director of the CMS. Mr. Blum’s former boss, Max Baucus, is the one who originally asked the CMS to investigate the companies critical of the health care bill.

Wait…better still. The letter Humana sent to its customers warned that Democratic plans to reform health care could result in benefit cuts, conclusions that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) supports with its own assertions made to Max Baucus’ committee. On Tuesday, the CBO director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Finance Committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage (the program that gives almost ¼ of all seniors’ private health insurance options) will result in lower benefits and almost 2.7 million seniors losing their coverage.

Baucus believes that Humana is purposefully misleading seniors in just another scare tactic. I’m sure it has nothing to do with Humana, a private insurance company, tending to the needs and interests of its own customers, and honestly informing them of the damaging democratic plans to overhaul health care. Since the Obama administration has been so welcoming to opposing points of views, not only meticulously reviewing the Republican versions of health care reform, but also responding to the concerns of millions of American citizens, I’m sure the recent gag order coming from his own appointee to silence unfavorable statistics is simply a coincidence.

And then we have the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP) who has spent millions of dollars on its TV ad campaign and newsletters to its members, including eight million direct-mail letters sent over Labor Day. On its own website, AARP claims that the proposed health care reform will not in any way cut benefits or increase expenses for seniors. AARP markets its version of the Advantage plan, through United HealthCare, and boasts 1.7 million customers. And by the way, AARP happens to be one of the most powerful lobbying groups on Capitol Hill.

I’m sure their letter from Mr. Blum just got lost in the mail, even though our post office is an exceptional example of government funds well managed and budgeted. Just ask Obama.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574431212166204156.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/24/hhs-1997-prohibiting-hmos-informing-clients-pending-legislation-viola

Do Your Homework

Van Jones stepped down as the “green jobs” czar last week. Great, he should leave. Jones is a radical liberal and self-professed communist who was exposed largely because of independent thinkers with a microphone. With Jones out, it’s time the other czars indisputably chosen for such prominent positions by Obama and his administration are exposed for their worldviews. Expose their character and their beliefs, and if needed, take action once again to protect the interests of Americans.

Don’t wait for someone else to look into these czars. Do your homework. My choice for the next target: Cass Sunstein. On September 9th, the same day as President Obama’s speech to congress on health care, Harry Reid (D-NV) pushed for cloture (a method used to close a debate and cause an immediate vote) for the confirmation of Sunstein as the “regulatory czar.” Conveniently, while the media and much of the informed public focused on Obama’s Trojan horse, the senate rushed into voting on a man they probably know little about. How can I be so sure they don’t know who he is? Because this is Cass Sunstein:

- In a speech at Harvard University in 2007, Sunstein expressed his animal rights views. He stated that hunting should be banned, and that subjecting animals to such unjustified suffering is akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.
- He believes the Second Amendment does not protect and individual’s rights to bear arms.
- He believes that animals should have the right to bring suit against human beings, with a human as its attorney, because animals are not property to own. (No, I’m not making that up.)
- He does believe, however, that animals should have the right to own property.
- In his 2001 book, “Republic.com,” he argued that the Internet weakens democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups of like-minded individuals, thus cutting themselves off from information that challenges their beliefs, also known as “cyberbalkanization.” Further, he said that the internet must be regulated for “democratic principles.”
- He believes we should have a second bill of rights because no one really opposes government intervention. This “second bill” would advocate citizens’ rights to an education, a home, health care, and a right to protection against monopolies because the Constitutional framers didn’t give thought to social and economic guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
- In his 2004 book “The Second Bill of Rights,” he stated that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that the government grants them.
- He is a believer in the concept of “libertarian paternalism,” which promotes the concept that regulators will gently “nudge” citizens into making choices they (the regulators) deem are appropriate, thus rewarding citizens for those appropriate choices (a theory he wrote about in his 2007 booked called “Nudge”).

This is America’s regulatory czar; the head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Every piece of major regulation will sit on his desk until he takes a red pen to it. The internet, television and radio will be well within his realm of jurisdiction. This former Harvard Law Professor will be in the back pocket of radical groups such at PETA who salivate with the idea that animals are equal citizens with you and I.

Hours before Obama’s health care speech, Sunstein was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in a 63-35 vote. Numerous republicans and all but three democrats voted yes. Our senators voted for a man who has so perverted the original intent of our founding documents and has every intention of influencing society to an extent that could become principally unrecognizable.

Richard Epstein, a liberal law professor at University of Chicago and co-editor with Sunstein of a book about the 2000 elections, supported his confirmation “notwithstanding the many substantive disagreements between us.” Glenn Reynolds, the libertarian blogger and law professor remarked that Sunstein’s confirmation “shows that the Obama administration is perhaps willing to look at new and less intrusive approaches to regulation … there are a lot of people worthy of more concern than Sunstein. If I were advising Republicans, I’d tell them to focus their attention elsewhere.” Too many of the Republican Senators did just that.

Place a frog in boiling water and it will jump out, but start with luke warm water, raise the temperature slowly, and eventually you’ll have frog legs for dinner. This simple concept is what too many extremists within our government understand and are implementing, and what too few conservatives fail to recognize.

It is time for the principles and morality that has served this country (and the world) well for over 200 years to make a quick comeback. The temperature is rising. Jump out of the pot… and fight.

Sources:
http://washingtonindependent.com/58152/attacks-on-sunstein-frustrate-conservative-fans
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2156473/is_cass_sunstein_the_next_van_jones_pg2.html?cat=9
http://stopsunstein.com/

Step Up and Lead

In a previous post, I asked the reader if they had the fortitude to step up to the plate and lead their neighbor or neighborhood for the sake of truth and prosperity.

To be a leader, you must:

"Be" ~ practice what you preach; be the person you say you are

"Know" ~ have knowledge. This includes the integrity to hold only to truthful knowledge, not propaganda

"Do" ~ put your beliefs into action

First things first, let us discuss the "Be" and the "Know".

It is my opinion that if you are to be a leader at this stage in the game, you need to come to the table already an embodiment of someone who practices what they preach. Very simply, I cannot help you with the "Be" portion; you either 'are' or you 'are not'.

While the overall intent of both this blog and the resource links contained within this post is to educate, as a potential leader it is inherent that you already possess at least some degree of knowledge relating the Constitution, the system of Government and the proper role of Government thereof. It need not be a vast and total understanding, just a basic grasp of some history and a few of the concepts in play. Again, at this stage in the game, you must already "Know" some of the basics on your own.

My purpose as the author of this post is only to develope the "Do" portion of this three part leadership philosophy - how to properly put your beliefs into action. First off, I proudly proclaim and admit that you exceed this author in your potential to shape the cause! I have never been one to micro-manage; I am no Wizard of Oz. All I can do is hopefully gain your attention, and show you a few resources to aid you in your pursuits.

I can tell you something, however, that is non-debatable: you must understand that as a leader in a cause such as the survival of our Republic, there are factors that must always be present if we are to accomplish any objective that contributes to the overall endstate:

1. Be prepared to question with BOLDNESS

2. Once you find the TRUTH, hold to it

3. You must speak without FEAR

There is something else as well: you must always accomplish your goals "by, with, and through" the American People. While this may seem obvious, always keep in mind that you are not part of some 'fringe' group. You must understand that you are only facilitating and carrying out the vision what the Founding Fathers intended some 233 years ago.

The below links will hopefully help you shape your discussion. In addition, please take note of the recently updated list of links to the right-hand side of this page. Use them as you see fit, or don't use them at all and make your own way. If you choose the latter, if you would please take the time to make a comment and let us all know what resources you used to aid your path in leadership.

Part I: http://media.patriotpost.us/pdf/edition/09-35a.pdf

Part II: http://media.patriotpost.us/pdf/edition/09-36a.pdf

Red Skelton, in His Own Words

What a Patriot. The date was January 14, 1969.

My Moral Obligation?

On Wednesday, August 19th, Mr. Obama reached out to liberal and progressive religious figures to help spread the “good news” about health care reform and to set the record straight. During that conference call, he addressed those who were “bearing false witness” and spreading lies regarding his heath care plan. He remarked that the numerous false claims were “fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation…I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, and in the wealthiest nation on Earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.”

A moral and ethical obligation…really? Is it a right of every American to have affordable and quality heath coverage? I would argue, no. It is not a moral right for all Americans (or those living in America) to have health coverage. It is a privilege to live in the wealthiest nation on Earth, and with that privilege comes an opportunity to receive the world’s best heath care.

(First of all, there is a difference between heath care and health coverage. Heath care is the treatment and management of illnesses, as well as the preservation of your health through services offered by medical professionals. Health coverage, or health insurance, is insurance that pays for medical expenses. Individuals pay either a premium or taxes to help protect themselves from high or unexpected heath care expenses. Mr. Obama believes it is the moral obligation of government to provide affordable, quality health coverage.)

Those in support of health reform have been asking questions…what about the young couple who have to take out a loan to pay for the birth of their first child because they can’t afford the cost? What about the recently laid-off father who now has to pay for a sudden and unexpected surgery of a sick child? What about the single mother working three part-time jobs and cannot afford to get her own heath insurance? Why should I have to pay for the upgraded cochlear implant that I want, but is too expensive?

According to Obama, I am my sister’s keeper, and it is my moral obligation to help pay for her surgery, health insurance and any future coverage that is too expensive for her or her children … all while paying for my own. But I see a glaring problem with this. I cannot control how my sister lives her life. She may choose to smoke for forty years or maintain a steady diet of Red Bull and Krispy Kremes while working as a crab fisherman off the coast of Alaska. How she lives and the risks she takes are her choice. It is not, then, my obligation to pay for her when she gets sick or injured. Nor is it her responsibility to cover my medical expenses if I decide to go mountain biking around the edges of a quarry in the rain (which is very risky…believe you me).

As my sister’s keeper, I would encourage her to quit smoking, eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly. Or to wait to have children until she and her husband have a steady job that provides heath benefits, or to get rid of her monthly cable (gasp!) and internet bill in order to pay her monthly premium. The point is, I would do a much better service for my sister by encouraging her to make better financial and health decisions.

Of course not all health care needs are a result of food choices or job-related accidents. The cost of prescription medications are high, employers sometimes drop coverage for their employees, some individuals have pre-existing conditions which insurance companies are not willing to cover, and many doctors practice defensive medicine which quadruples your hospital bill. To all of that, I would say TOUGH.

Did I just say that? It sounds so…heartless.

We do not have a perfect medical system in America. No one, including myself, is arguing for the status quo. But what I cannot get passed is the amount of people interviewed on television, showing up at townhall meetings with signs, and writing on blogs who have their own problem. Or they know of Sally Smith’s problem that lives down the road.

I truly believe that in America, given the chance, people will figure out a way to take care of their own. Once upon a time, Americans did this. Previous generations lived through two world wars and the Great Depression. America survived the Jimmy Carter years which produced a worse recession than the one we have today (including unemployment rates that neared 16%). But Americans rose to the challenge each and every time. And we are still – still - living in the most prosperous country in the world.

So I say again, TOUGH. As Thomas Paine said, these are the times that try men’s souls. Find a way. The government must not intervene to fix every problem we encounter. If citizens believe it is the obligation of the government to pay their hospital bills, there is no end to what the government should, and will, control.

Where is the passion to make it on your own? To find a way, when there seems to be no way? To go from rags to riches, without a government handout? In the words of George Washington, “perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages.” And in this age, I put my trust in the average American to find their way rather than trust the government to find the way for us. I take that as my moral obligation.

For a great article:
The Claremount Institute, "Is Heath Care a Right?"
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1607/article_detail.asp