Friday Follies for September 27, 2013

Quote of the Day:

“…the fresh crop of newcomers — Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas — are children of the new age — noisy, rambunctious, impatient and impenitent, even. They’re not coming to town to carve out a sinecure, to be carried out feet first a quarter of a century later leaving no impression but the shape of their ample bottoms in an easy chair. They’re neither impressed by the ritual of “the world’s oldest deliberative body,” nor respectful of the ivy-encrusted tradition that binds it to the past. They’re contemptuous of all that. For better or worse, they’re coming only to do a job.” — Wes Pruden, The Washington Times.

***

If you were to draw back and review the events of the last few weeks dispassionately, you would see what is hidden from the GOP establishment. The Republican Party is dissolving.

If we are to believe the GOP establishment, Obamacare will collapse of its own impracticability. All we have to do is wait. The New Boys (a term I’ll adopt in want of a better one,) say, “No! Kill it now before it irretrievably damages the country.”

Those two viewpoints reveal the dichotomy of the GOP, the division between the establishment who wants not to make waves least they be damped, and those who knows the waves are coming regardless and we’ll all be wettened in the deluge of failing liberalism.

Wes Pruden, in the article that I took his quote above, notes the changes and the divisiveness within the GOP. The New Boys have come to town with an agenda. It’s not their agenda, it is the agenda of their constituents that says, “NO MORE.”

It is increasingly apparent that the divisions will not—can not heal given the intransigence of the Washington establishment. I now believe it is only a matter of time before the conservatives of the GOP depart. They will declare themselves ‘independent’ one by one, no longer giving allegiance to the GOP. At some point, they will declare a unity of goals and principles and a new party/association/alliance will emerge and the two-party system will dissolve.

Pundits will declare than our government was designed as a two-party system. That is not true. It was envisioned to be without political parties at all, but, given human nature, people of like opinions will gather and merge into political forces.

Perhaps it is time for the two-party system to become a three-party system. The libs should applaud. After all, the nation will then follow the multiparty politics of their beloved Europe.

Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3

My high school English teacher was an older, unmarried lady who had a, well let’s say, a risque reputation when she was younger. My parents knew her for years and when I was a high school sophomore, she was my teacher.

She loved Shakespeare. We were required to read a number of Shakespeare’s plays and his poetry. I barely passed. At age 15, Shakespeare didn’t interest me.

Fast forward four years. I’m now in college and once again I’m in an English lit class and we’re reading Shakespeare’s “historical” play, the Henrys, Richard the Third, and a few of his comedies. I’ve forgotten the instructor’s name. It’s been over fifty years. I do remember he read to us in class, in dialect of the times. Shakespeare became real. It became one of my favorite classes.

It was a four credit-hour class. We met four times a week and we spent a week on Henry the Fifth, one of Shakespeare’s most well known and most quoted plays. One of those famous quotes is  in Act IV, Scene 3 when Henry is in France, at Agincourt…on St. Crispin’s Day eve.

SCENE III. The English camp.

Enter GLOUCESTER, BEDFORD, EXETER, ERPINGHAM, with all his host: SALISBURY and WESTMORELAND

GLOUCESTER

Where is the king?

BEDFORD

The king himself is rode to view their battle.

WESTMORELAND

Of fighting men they have full three score thousand.

EXETER

There’s five to one; besides, they all are fresh.

SALISBURY

God’s arm strike with us! ’tis a fearful odds.
God be wi’ you, princes all; I’ll to my charge:
If we no more meet till we meet in heaven,
Then, joyfully, my noble Lord of Bedford,
My dear Lord Gloucester, and my good Lord Exeter,
And my kind kinsman, warriors all, adieu!

BEDFORD

Farewell, good Salisbury; and good luck go with thee!

EXETER

Farewell, kind lord; fight valiantly to-day:
And yet I do thee wrong to mind thee of it,
For thou art framed of the firm truth of valour.
Exit SALISBURY

BEDFORD

He is full of valour as of kindness;
Princely in both.
Enter the KING

WESTMORELAND

O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING HENRY V

What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

Now, let’s move forward nearly 700 years and revise Henry’s speech into modern terms. It is still potent and applicable today—with a bit of tongue-in-cheek.

Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3.

Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3, Revised.

News you won’t hear from the MSM

If you’re like me you seldom listen to the MSM. The only time I do is for a different viewpoint—if there is one at all. For example, I’ve posted several times about the events and non-reported events in Benghazi. The MSM is remarkably silent on that subject. If you go to the CBS News website, you’ll find nothing about Benghazi. You’ll find sympathetic stories about children in Egypt, the Syrian civil war but not a word on Benghazi. Ditto for ABC News, NBC News, and CNN. I’m not going to bother with MSNBC.

But Benghazi isn’t the subject for today. It’s all the other news items, some big, some small, that isn’t being covered.

If you rely on the MSM and the local TV stations for your news, you’re being lied to—lied by omission rather than commission. The result of either method is ignorance…your ignorance of what is truly happening in the country and around the world.

An ignorant populace is one that can be easily led, mislead and manipulated. That is the prime reason why pamphleteers such as Franklin and Paine were so important during the revolution. It is also why the press has in integral function in our society. Until that responsibility is corrupted like is has been today.

Being informed in not the sole responsibility of the press or the MSM. Like that of self-defense, insuring we are informed is a personal responsibility.  All the headlines above were found on The Drudge Report this morning. The Drudge website is updated frequently, sometimes within minutes of the event. It is one of a number of sites I use to keep myself informed.

Here are a few others. I would suggest you build a list of favored sites and check them daily, if not more often. Being informed allows you to make good, informed decisions. Decisions at the polls. Decisions at work. Decisions at home.

This is just a short list. I have as well some liberal sites such as The Politico and The Hill because some of their reporters aren’t all that liberal.

Have you created your news list? Everyone should.

Principles, Values and Motivations

As conservatives, we base our principles on the Constitution, the writings of our Founders, of Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. These writers and others expound the theories that our nation has placed into practice as our Constitution.

From these principles, we create our values: individual liberty, self-reliance, personal responsibility and growth through personal effort and work. These values give meaning to our lives, our families and our children. Together, our principles and values, have created a culture that is foreign to many. Particularly, the left, whose principles and values differ radically.

Today’s topic, however, is not about those differences. It is about motivations—what drives us towards our goal of reclaiming our state and federal governments, of reinstituting those cherished values into government and reclaiming our individual liberties and self-worth.

At the root, while creating a personal framework, neither principles nor values truly drive our motivation. It is the imposition of contrary principles and values that motivate us. I found an article by John Hawkins on PJ media (H/T to Dinah H) that enumerates the issues that motivate us as we move toward the elections in thirty days. John writes of five issues…agendas, perhaps, that has been adopted by the left. These agendas, as they have been and continue to be implemented on a national scale creates conflicts with our established, conservative culture, principles and values. Those differences, ours from our values and the left’s from the agendas below, creates and supports our motivation.

5 Revolting Facets Of American Culture

The black mold in the walls of American culture.

1) An elevation of victimhood

In a weird reversal of how the world has worked since man was raised up out of the dust, it has become good to be a victim in America. In fact, many of the people held up as “victims” in our country are loving every second of their “victimhood.”

The best recent example of that phenomenon is Sandra Fluke. Here’s an unaccomplished 30 year old student who went to Congress and demanded that other people be forced to pay thousands of dollars a year to subsidize her birth control. It’s like the set-up of a stand-up comedian’s joke, except that when people responded with the natural punch lines which featured lots of “She’s a slut” jokes, Sandra Fluke was treated like a victim. Next thing you know, she’s on TV, she’s treated like a heroine, she gets a speaking slot at the Democratic Convention. For a 5th rate mediocrity like Sandra Fluke, her supposed “victimhood” was the best thing that ever happened to her.

2) A fascination with freaks, failures, and deviants

For many Americans, the easiest way to get your name in the papers, get people talking about you, and make money isn’t to be great at something, it’s to be a dirtbag. Make a sex tape, flash your vagina getting out of a car, or just behave like a jackass and everyone will be saying your name. If you don’t think that’s true, then why do you know who Snooki is?

When you reward bad behavior with money and fame, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get more bad behavior. Snooki may be a skanky loser, but how many young girls are thinking, “A skanky ‘loser’ with money, fame, and a TV show sounds pretty good to me!”

3) Infantilization

America is a country that was born in revolution and peopled by some of the most independent human beings ever to walk the earth. Our ancestors explored, conquered, and settled this nation under some of the harshest conditions imaginable, even in many places where “government” was more of a theoretical concept than a functioning entity. Now, the government educates your kids, gives you money and food if you don’t have a job, picks which toilets and light bulbs you’re allowed to buy, runs your health care, and takes care of you when you get old.

We’ve become a society where adults are encouraged to behave like children and as Mark Steyn has said, “A society of children cannot survive, no matter how all-embracing the government nanny.”

4) Hyper-sexualization:

Sex is a healthy, normal, and good part of life. For that matter, so is water. But just as you can drown in a flood, our society is drowning in sex. It saturates our magazine ads, TV, and the Internet to such an extent that gyrating women in bikinis trying to sell us beer or teenagers having sex on TV barely even catches our attention.

Hyper-sexualized Halloween costumes, nudity on the Internet and in film, and musicians wearing outfits that would have been considered risque for prostitutes fifty years ago have become the norm. Worse yet, we don’t know how to stop ourselves. Any time someone suggests that we turn the dial down a notch or two from acting like a society full of pimps and whores, you’d think it was a suggestion that we put everyone in formless robes and chastity belts. There should be some setting between Leave it to Beaver and a strip club that we can embrace as a country.  (RELATED CONTENT: What Father Would Permit His Young Daughter to Wear a Bikini? and The Difference Between Sexy Bikinis and Slutty Thongs — And Why Little Girls Should Wear Neither)

5) Indifference towards societal disintegration

Thomas Sowell had it right when he said, “Civilization has been aptly called a ‘thin crust over a volcano.’ The anointed are constantly picking at that crust.”

We seem to start out with an assumption that our culture is healthy, vibrant, and can’t be damaged by any of our societal tinkering. It’s hard to understand what would give anyone this impression when roughly a third of the population has been divorced, 73 percent of black children, 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites are born outside marriage, and 1 out of every 32 Americans is in prison or on parole.

Yet, we slur Christianity, encourage gay marriage, talk up single motherhood, push deviancy in TV and movies, mock morality and scoff at codes of honor. Throughout most of history, civilizations haven’t looked at attempts to stave off cultural rot as religious zealotry or prudishness; they’ve considered it to be simple common sense.

Truly, we are in a culture war. A war between those of us who cherish our traditions, our Christian values and the principles that built this country against those of the dependency class, those who have neither values based on religion or on self-improvement but of personal aggrandizement—a transitory display of self that fades with age and without gaining wisdom.

The next battle in that war comes in a month when we go to the polls to determine which of these two cultural visions will be sustained.  The war between these two cultures will not be resolved in a single battle for there is no end as long as greed, sloth and a lust for power exists. This election will not determine the winner of the culture war. If we lose, however, it could be a devastating to our continued survival as a nation of free individuals. The nation is becoming fragile and it could take little for it to be permanently damaged.

When you enter the polling booth next month, think on these motivators and check the box, flip the lever for the conservative candidate…the candidate whose personal ethos supports our common principles and values, the candidate who is motivated, like us, in defense of our nation, our principles, values and culture.

Observations on a Primary

It’s over! Some of the folks I supported won, some lost. I’m happy with most of the results. One who I supported won with nearly 70% of the votes.

While I watched the results roll in last night, I noticed at trend building.  The state ‘Pub establishment took a beating yesterday. A number of the establishment’s candidates lost, some with significant margins, to those who received support from Missouri’s grassroot conservatives.  Many of these grassroot organizations were initially started by Paul supporters. Some were frustrated Tea Partiers unhappy with the “organized” Tea Party like Freedom Works and the AFP. They felt that the organized Tea Party had sold out to the GOP establishment.

I don’t know if that is true or not. From my perspective, I think there is some truth hidden in those frustrations.  The Tea Party Express was established by Trent Lott in an attempt to subvert the Tea Party.  It didn’t work.

Let’s take the U. S. Senate race between John Brunner, Sarah Steelman and Tod Akin as an example.  All the conventional polls had Brunner winning with Steelman second, followed by Akin—the Uber-Conservative according to Claire McCaskill.  Brunner had the money, mostly his own, Steelman had the support of the MOGOP establishment, Freedom Works, some of the AFP and endorsements and support from Sarah Palin. Tod Akin had…the overwhelming support of grassroot groups scattered across the state. Groups that worked under the radar for the most part and out of mind by the establishment. I voted for Sarah Steelman. But it was a close toss-up between her and Tod Akin.

There were other signs of grassroot groups making their presence felt. Another example was the race for the Missouri District 31 Senate. Scott Largent was the establishment’s pick. He also had the support of the teacher’s unions and from an out-of-state corporation with a feud with Largent’s opponent, Ed Emery.  That corporation paid for a large amount of negative, mud-slinging ads against Emery. Largent didn’t pay for those ads. Neither did he disavow them. Instead, he incorporated some of the themes from those ads into his own campaign. Largent also had the support of the Cass County establishment including endorsements from several office holders. In one county, Bates, if I remember correctly, Largent had the support of the county teacher’s union who urged their democrat members to cross party lines to vote against Emery.

All that backfired.  Emery was another who had the support of those grassroot groups and from frustrated Paul supporters unaffiliated with any of the other organizations.  Out of five counties in that Senatorial district, Emery won four including Cass, the largest, most populous of the five. Cass has more potential votes than any two or three counties in the district combined. The only county that Emery didn’t lead was Henry county. Clinton, the largest town in Henry County is Largent’s home and he rightfully expected to win Henry County and did.  Still it didn’t help. In the end, Emery won with 10,100 votes to Largent’s 9,600.

Another example was the race between Jacob Turk and Jerry Nolte for the 5th Congressional District. During Missouri’s redistricting last year, the GOP establishment purposely took a notch out of Cleaver’s district that just happened to include Turk’s home and placed Turk into another district that already had a strong ‘Pub incumbent. That plan was later thrown out but it’s an example of how far the establishment will go against one of their opponents.

Came the election, Turk won handily. Nolte, with the establishment’s stamp of approval, lost. Turk won the GOP slot against democrat Emmanuel Cleaver with 59% of the GOP primary votes.

There is a lesson to be learned from yesterday’s primary if the Missouri GOP establishment is wise enough to accept it. 

Don’t ignore Missouri’s conservative grassroots. Do so at your peril.

There has been an old adage that I believe is still valid. “So goes Missouri, so goes the nation.” GOP, heed this and learn.

A Conservative Foreign Policy.

Waaay back in the day when I was still in college, I took some government classes to fill out some electives and credits while finishing my major.  Two classes were “American Foreign Policy” and “Foreign Relations and Diplomacy.”  I don’t remember the name of the instructor but he was the #2 or #3 man in the US State Department under John Foster Dulles during Eisenhower’s presidency. (Yeah, I know. This dates me.) He was also the State Department’s liaison with the CIA when Allen Dulles was the director.  John and Allen Dulles were brothers, by the way.
It was a very interesting series of classes and they were conducted more as seminars than senior year classes.  They made me think in a new manner and probably were the turning point that directed me down the conservative path—much to the chagrin of my democrat and union supporting father. I suppose the libs of that day would say that I’d been indoctrinated. In reality, none of the classes were politically oriented. Much to the contrary.

Be that as it may, I’ve always had an interest in foreign policy.  It didn’t take long for me to decided that the policies presented by democrats were…stupid if not insane.  Remember the definition of insanity is doing the same over and over again while expecting different results.

Our current policy of kissing the butt of our enemies (Chavez, Castro, Hamas/Hezbollah, et. al.) is a prime example.  It’s certainly worked to keep Obama’s most powerful enemy, Hillary Clinton, out of the country, but other than that, it’s been a complete failure.

What should be a good, workable and conservative foreign policy for out times?  The one below is short, sweet, appropriate and workable.  It was presented by Sarah Palin earlier this week at a military charity fundraiser at the Colorado Christian University. You shouldn’t be surprised you’ve not heard about it.
Sarah Palin said…
There’s a lesson here then for the effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity. See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision. I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points.

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.

Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.

We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world. But with strength and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re going to prove that free and healthy countries don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries. The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.
There is much more here.  Read the column at Red State and then compare Palin’s foreign policy with that of Obama’s.  Which would you prefer?  Me? I’ll take Sarah Palin and her foreign policy any day.

Election Day: April 5, 2011

Next week is my local election day for city council and for the local school board. The usual lyin’ libs are running again.

I met one last week. I was pulling out my drive-way when this older “gentleman” appeared suddenly at my passenger door. I had looked all around as I was backing out and didn’t see him anywhere. He walked around to my side and said, after I rolled down the window, “I wanted to introduce myself before you left.” My first thought was that he’d run over, keeping in my blindspot, and risked that I might run over him just to make a political appeal!

He handed me some flyers, spoke his name and asked for my vote. I noticed he was wearing a NRA t-shirt. So I asked, “You’re a NRA member?”

His response started with, “Yeah, but I don’t agree with them on a number of things.”

Alarm bells started ringing in my mind.

There was a charter amendment passed last year that prohibited concealed carry in city buildings. It was advertised misleadingly and was so poorly written that it also prohibited plain-clothed cops from carrying in city buildings too. Also if any uniformed cops had a concealed backup weapon, they couldn’t enter any city buildings either. Note, the police headquarters is a city building too.

I asked this candidate if he favored repealing that charter amendment? He said, “No. It’s too dangerous to allow weapons on city property.”

Ah ha!

What we have here, folks, is a lib trying to use the NRA to masquerade as a ‘Pub or conservative. Typical. I discovered later this person was our local equivalent to Harold Stassen.

I returned his campaign flyers and told him he’d not get my vote. I said I favored the repeal of the charter amendment and that I also had a concealed carry permit. His eyes widened a bit. I’m not sure if it was because I’d just told him he’d lost my vote or if it was the usual lib response to anyone willing and able to defend themselves. He also wasn’t too observant or he’d have seen my Life NRA license plate holder on my Tahoe.

I won’t say who this person was other than his initials are RH. I’ve since had a campaign sign of Ryan Wescoat, his opponent, placed in my yard. Ryan is the imcumbent. He was appointed to complete the term of a conservative councilman who ran, successfully, for a county office. Ryan is one of our local Young Republicans and has good conservative credentials.

I urge you to vote for him for Raymore City Council.