Saturday, January 24, 2015

Why Reagan Was Great, And Obama Is Not

     This week marked the second to last State of the Union speech by Barack Obama that the nation must suffer through and endure as the clock of mercy slowly ticks out his time in office. The State of the Union address has become just one in a long list of this great country's traditions that Barack Obama has de-elevated from the heights of the republic's decency to the depths of sleazy showmanship.
     The actual show in the House chamber that is perpetrated on the traditions and values of our great constitutional republic by this president is bad enough, but the pre-game and post-game shows that are imposed upon an innocent and once free people are the height of the tyranny of impropriety. And through all three stages, pre-game, game, and post-game, President Obama shows a complete lack of presidential decorum and grace exhibited by most of his predecessors, and required by the stature of the office of President of the United States of America.
     The presidency of the United States as drawn by the Framers of the constitution is an annoyance to this president, not an honor. I wish those who voted for this malcontent community agitator would have known that they were not voting for a president but for a churlish defender of infantilism. Barack Obama does not speak the language of America, but the language grievance against America. He does not seek common ground with his political opposition, or even the majority of Americans, but rather the ground of Leftism that has been so thoroughly salted with the failed ideas of Stalin, Mau, Castro, et al, that even the weeds of Liberty can not take root, let alone its flower of prosperity.
     I heard this week the clanking rhetoric of Barack Obama, and juxtaposed against it, I also heard segments of Ronald Reagan's State of the Union from the same point in his presidency that President Obama is in currently. The difference is the stark contrast between a man who was deferential to congress and one who is derisive of that body. It is the difference between a man who spoke of the three words that make the United States Constitution exceptional over any other, i.e. "We the people." President Reagan affably and aptly explained in just a few words that those three words meant that the American people get to tell their government what it can do and can not do, not as Barack Obama believes, the other way around.
     Where Ronald Reagan had humility, Barack Obama has hubris. Where Ronald Reagan had the largess of magnanimity, Barack Obama possesses the pettiness of arrogance. Where Ronald Reagan felt a love of his country so great that he wanted to preserve it, Barack Obama loves his own greatness above all else, even the very founding of the country he now "leads." Barack Obama never wanted to be president, he wanted the presidency to be his. Ronald Reagan understood that the office is greater than the man who contemporaneously holds it.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Why The Republican Establishment Hates Ted Cruz

     While the 2016 presidential election is still a year and nine months hence, and only guesses can be proffered by one who wishes to predict who will be our next president, we do know who will not reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on January 21, 2017. For the Democrats it is Hillary Clinton (sorry all you Hillary fans and foes). On the Republican side, the presidential pariah, for the establishment anyway, is Ted Cruz. Even though he would probably be the best man, woman, or child for the job, unfortunately our country has moved far beyond considering what is best for it in electing representation.
     So why is it that the Republican establishment, like Mitch McConnell, John McCain, John Boehner, et al, hate Ted Cruz? The answer is simple: Senator Cruz is a vocal representation of the bright light of probity and Liberty that he has shined directly into the establishment's bed of political inequity. He has revealed that the Republican establishment have been sharing the bed of their politics with the whore of compromise. Ted Cruz is a constant and vociferous reminder to the establishment of the better angels of their own nature which they have long ago buried under the dung of big Party politics.
     The criticism of Ted Cruz by the Republican establishment is that, God forbid, he actually listens to his constituents and serves the tenets of the United States Constitution. Senator Cruz is a marker on the political highway of America. A marker, which when compared to the position on that road of the Republican establishment, is illustrative of how far they have strayed from the principles and values of the founding documents written by men they claim to be there ancestors, and sanctified by a creator whose natural laws they no longer follow.
     It is certainly a sad time in our nation's germination when many in the Republican establishment consider their campaign promises to be nothing more than the whispered machinations that a teenage boy whispers to a teenage girl in the backseat of his car to convince her to compromise her virtue. The Republican establishment's constitutional probity is as ephemeral as the campaign dollars that run through their fingers and are washed away by the waves of political compromise that are fed by the Sea of political self-serving.
     What really burns my bottom is that the Republican establishment, from their position of moral and political compromise, have the audacity to assail persons like Ted Cruz. Leaders who take their commitment to the voters, to their own honor, and to the oath they pledged to the Constitution of the United States of America, as a sacred bond which no amount of arrows from the establishment can break.

Sunday, January 4, 2015

What Is So Scary About Hillary?

     Now that 2015 is underway, so to is the race for the 2016 presidential nominations. With no official declarations on either side, one can surmise that certain persons on both sides will surely throw their political hats into the cesspool of presidential politics. The most feared candidate on the Democrat side of the aisle (at least the most feared by moderate Republicans), is Hillary Clinton. Remember her, the smartest women, nay, the smartest person in the world who was destined for the presidency in 2008, until little known community agitator Barack Obama ripped the scepter of presidential power from her chubby little hand.
     I never understood some Republicans' debilitating fear of Hillary Clinton, the woman who lost her party's nomination that was understood by everyone on both sides of the political spectrum to be a fait accompli. The reason was clear; she was a bad candidate that was bound to lose to any of the Republican challengers being considered by GOP primary voters. Democrat Party stalwart Teddy Kennedy understood this and threw his rather weighty support behind Barack Obama to avoid being trapped in the burning wreckage of the Hillary campaign.
     When one examines the career of the Left's favorite career woman, it is obvious that the Hillary train of failure and non-success somehow dragged itself into the station of political power. This is a woman who was dismissed from the Watergate committee by her Democrat superior for, in his words, "Ethical violations and lying." Having no political star of her own, she tied herself to Bill Clinton's coattails and hung on for dear life.
     Hillary was given a position at the prestigious Rose Law Firm in Little Rock Arkansas, in spite of her ethical violations, because she was the wife of the state's attorney general and latter governor. In all the years she spent at the firm she never tried one case, but rather met with important clients of the firm as a physical representation of the firm's conduit to the highest levels of power in the Arkansas state government.
     Hillary's failure continued as First Lady when what was suppose to be her crowning achievement, universal healthcare, went up in a spectacular political fireball of ineptness and illegality. Some may have forgotten that Hillary's healthcare task force was found by a federal judge to have been formulated illegally. The rest of her husband's term in office Hillary was relegated to baking cookies and handling Bill's bimbo eruptions, which seem to be popping up as frequently as gas pains after a bad Mexican meal.
     After the eight years of the Clinton administration Hillary was rewarded for her loyalty to Bill and the party with a New York senate seat, for which she ran virtually unopposed. To say that her senate career was undistinguished is an understatement on par with saying ISIS is a slightly aggressive organization. And then there is her campaign for the Democrat presidential nomination to which I alluded earlier in this post.
     The 2008 campaign was the longest stretch of campaigning in which Hillary had ever engaged, and the party bulls like Ted Kennedy did not like what they saw. Placing her on the top of the ticket against John McCain and Sarah Palin was seen as political suicide and so she was thrown under the bus in favor of, as Joe Biden put it, "A clean articulate black man." She was thrown the bone of Secretary of State (a position in which she not only did not distinguish herself, but was a total failure) to soothe her hurt feelings with the promise that next time it would be her turn.
     Here we are, ground zero of next time, and my guess is the Democrat Party establishment will find some way to deny Hillary again. But what about the polls that say Hillary Clinton is still one of the most popular figures in American politics? Well, I think they have been created to form opinion, not reflect it. If she really was that popular, why did her book sell so embarrassingly few copies? If ever there was a paper tiger in American politics, it is Hillary. That is why I will be saddened if she is not the Democrat Party's nominee for 2016. She is, after all, the most beatable candidate ever in presidential politics.