Since Sarah's Not Running

Four years ago, after Fred Thompson dropped out of the GOP primary, I was a supporter of Mitt Romney because he was the most conservative candidate remaining. Four painful years hence, Barack Obama is president and has unleashed a leftist gauntlet unlike anything seen since Wilson and FDR. So now, a middle of the road Republican is unacceptable, the battle must be joined because the fate of the Republic is at stake.

My choice for engaging in this battle was Sarah Palin for many reasons but three in particular. She has been attacked from every conceivable angle possible and savagely, at that. Yet, she still stands strong. She also has a deep understanding of what has gone wrong and has fought the battle against even her own party's corruption and won. Finally, she is unapologetic and fearless. She doesn't accept the leftist media premise and formulations on important issues and boldly speaks out and gives voice to Americans of all stripes who understand the blessings of liberty but who also want to hold both those in government and private sector actors accountable for abiding by the rules that have been established for the rest of us. Her identification of cronyism as the issue that animates most Americans and her articulation of the problem is as clear and relevant a manifesto as exists anywhere among the political class.

Sarah Palin is not perfect, nor was Reagan, yet I was willing to fight with her and die on that hill if necessary. If Palin is imperfect, most of the GOP presidential field is less so. I can eliminate Ron Paul and Gary Johnson from consideration because I don't agree with their take on foreign policy. Huntsman may as well be a Democrat and Romney authored Obamacare among other problems I have with him. Perry who as he entered the race fought comparisons to George W. Bush is looking more Bush-like with each debate performance. "Compassionate Conservative" anyone? That leaves Bachmann, Santorum and Cain.

Bachmann is fearless too and I like her. Until she got caught up in trying to take down Rick Perry, I was hoping that she would perform well because her philosophy and instincts are often very right. She had a good debate performance at the Bloomberg event . . until she again went after Rick Perry and that was awkward. Given where she's polling, I understand but it doesn't look good on her. Then there's Santorum. I agree with him on most issues but he too is not polling well and looked angry at the last debate. He's not getting traction. That leaves Herman Cain.

First, the big issue I have (and I suspect a number of conservatives share this concern) is his support of TARP and his tone deafness on the Federal Reserve. While the latter can be understood in light of his own chairmanship of the Kansas City Fed, without adequately understanding the problems of having a private bank manage our currency untethered to any hard valuation leads to inevitable devaluation of our currency and inflation. More problematic is his support for TARP with his only criticism being of its implementation and management, not the concept itself. If you don't see an issue, you may think that bailouts or government intervention is acceptable and find other areas where the government may step in. That is a problem!

However, just as Palin is imperfect, Cain is imperfect but his appearance on Meet The Press has placed me decidedly in his column of supporters. He has the strengths of Palin and Bachmann, not to accept leftist formulations and premises, he is unapologetic in his beliefs and he is likeable throughout, even in the lion's den of leftist media trap interviews. He is well spoken and able to articulate his beliefs and management philosophy which all translates to presidential bearing. I could talk about the merits of his "9-9-9" plan but that will become more clear in the days ahead. Ronald Reagan too was unabashedly conservative, yet cheerful and likeable and this is a great strength of Cain's that will be hard for his competitors to overcome. His "heritage" is also something that resonates with many of us; humble beginnings yet never complaining, never a victim and appreciative of the opportunity society that is America.

I think he should go have a good long chat - no, a serious conversation with Todd and Sarah about cronyism and TARP but given what we're facing, his philosophy, approach to problem solving and demeanor, I'd say Herman Cain may just be the man for this hour in American history. I support Herman Cain's candidacy for the Presidency of the United States of America.

Church of The Public Trough

In the many protestations from Democrats and their media allies about how dysfunctional the democratic process is (dictatorships more efficiently confiscate our wealth and erode our liberties) one of their orchestrated complaints is that government employees are being laid off. They present this as if it is obvious that this will harm the economy. To buy this premise one would have to believe that a government job benefits society in the way that a private sector job benefits society. This is false.

Without going into the numbers, let's examine what happens with generic private sector employment versus public sector employment. Private sector employment provides income and benefits for the employee and it also provides skills and experience. Public sector employment does much the same thing, to the extent the skills and experience are transferrable. This is where the similarities begin to sharply depart.

With private sector employment, productivity and profitability matter. If the enterprise for whom the employee lends her time and effort is profitable, it enriches her employer. It may or may or may not be as the result of her direct contribution but her efforts are presumably self-sustaining. Conversely, the enterprise may not be profitable and the employer may decide to close shop or redirect those resources elsewhere. This aspect of private employment is as important as profitability.

There is another important aspect of private employment that public employment does not provide. Private employment is a conduit for wealth but also of value. I'm sitting on my couch as I write this. Not only did my wife enrich the manufacturer and help to provide employment for those who sold their time and effort to produce the couch, our family gets to use it now and for some time into the future. This ongoing value is a key aspect of our standard of living.

Whereas private employment is a conduit of wealth and value and a feedback mechanism for resource utilization, public employment is a shunt of wealth, value and is largely impervious to feedback on the proper utilization of resources. Public sector employment doesn't by and large produce value (usefulness in excess of the price paid) or wealth and its effectiveness and efficiency is part of the lexicon of our common humor.

So, while elected Democrats and pundits suggest to us the harm that a decline in the public sector will induce, they skip over the part of how those jobs are funded, how they siphon resources from individuals and families and the marginal benefit they produce for society. If it were not for the massive spending and "shovel ready infrastructure" jobs (the same ones they want to really fund this time) they say, things would have been worse.

This faith in "stimulus" that elected Democrats say, "most serious economists believe" is again in order, beyond the demonstrably failed and logically flawed Keynesian argument is really nothing more than a thinly veiled faith in Marx's dictum that private property rights should be abolished. Why? Because the struggle of man is to meet his material need and the principle thing standing between "the masses" or "workers" are those that own the resources to employ. The hymnal of this church includes songs about evil corporate jets, coal and oil, grievance group dirges, spirituals on the virtues of the public sector. This faith compels them to deny the evidence before them in their evangelistic crusade to win converts and to hold on to adherents. Let's see whether their pews are filled in November 2012.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Warrior Silhouettes

I don't want to see their faces, their vitality, their competence, willingness, their distinctly American spirit. Had they died at Thermopylae, Stirling Bridge, Bunker Hill, Iwo Jima or any number of battles or engagements that have advanced the enduring cause of liberty, I would be pleased to see their likenesses memorialized in bronze. Why are our elite warriors so vulnerable, dying helplessly, for at best, an obliquely understood mission.

Yes, there are ideologues who are determined to destroy us gathered in distant hard lands. That we can track them down and kick their ass on their home turf is not in question but the sissification of our civilian leadership has their hands tied with rules of engagement suitable for flag football, not the violent mayhem in which these warriors excel. Define the mission, provide whatever resources are necessary, kick ass, let them swagger home and dare anyone to say a m#therf*ckin' word!

What's worse is, there is something strange about this result. 22 SEALs, 3 Air force spec operators and 5 other support team members on one transport vehicle on a combat mission? Are you serious? Was there an intelligence breach, poor planning or just one giant fustercluck? I will emphasize that I don't know what the circumstances were but I am pissed off and I hurt for their families. I don't want to see their faces because, I am angry and ashamed. America has lost the courage to support these young men; the support they absolutely deserve. Because we lack the discipline of a well defined purpose for their continued presence there and the resolve to see it through, we may as well have shot them down ourselves.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Obama, Democrats & RINOs Finally Downgrade America!

For the first time in history, America's debt rating is below AAA. Hope 'n change, indeed.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

S&P Says It's The Debt and Debt Trajectory, Not the Debt Ceiling!

The Boehner Plan will fall short of what's required to have US debt suffer a ratings downgrade. Cut, Cap & Balance!

My Response To Dan Riehl

Dan Riehl has a blog I really like - Riehl (pronounced real) World View. He, Erick Erickson and Michelle Malkin consistently share interesting insights from a conservative perspective. However, there is no monolith of opinion among conservatives, which sometimes makes it tough sledding at critical junctures like we face now with the debate to support yet another capitulation on principle or to stand our ground on the debt negotiations in D.C.

Speaker Boehner had a very effective rebuttal to our ubiquitous president's class warfare refrains - sing it with me, because of Bush . . . and my poor grandmother's college education grants, eating dog food that Republicans want to serve them and handicapped children - everybody now! Boehner did so well in offering a direct and immediate televised response, that his web site shut down from supporters. It's like the visceral response Trump and Chris Christie get in some quarters because they take on opponents in an unabashed and direct manner. But like Trump, Christie and recently Steve Wynn, Boehner is no conservative.

Riehl, like Eric Cantor who told conservatives to stop whining and vote, supports the new Boehner plan and used the businessman's creed to bring a solution, not a problem to frame his argument. My response, posting as 2nd Treatise, follows:

"So Dan, in the businessman versus politician formulation you're advancing here, what successful enterprise negotiates against itself to the advantage of competitors? Does Costco yield to Sam's Club on Sam's Club's terms just because that's what Sam's Club wants?

Why exactly must the House pass a new plan, especially one that gives Obama a blank check in exchange for $1 billion (or just 1/1000 down payment) in enforceable 1st year cuts and a panel? Sounds like a sub-prime no job, no income loan! Let's say the Senate doesn't pass the Boehner plan, are conservatives required to capitulate again and acquiesce to tax increases?

Cut cap and balance wasn't defeated, it has been tabled in the Senate. The House passed legislation that addresses the fiscal crisis that has the U.S. Debt rating under threat, the new Boehner plan will trigger a downgrade because it doesn't address the debt, only the less fiscally important ceiling.

Why is it it incumbent upon conservatives to yield when they've provided the tool that 20+ Democrat Senators are on the record for supporting, one that also provides a debt limit increase?"

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Like No Other!

Studies have shown that exposure to Old Glory predisposes the viewer toward conservatism. Keep looking and I'll keep posting!