WEEK OF MARCH 1, 2009

Text of the Mitt Romney Speech
Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference 

Courts that have undermined the fundamental right to life have shown an equal disregard for the rights of property and the rights of religious freedom. We’ve even seen them extend rights to terrorist combatants who have killed Americans and who would like to kill many more. 

[...] America voted for change. America did not vote for a boatload of new government spending programs that would guarantee higher taxes and high deficits as far as the eye can see and that would threaten our currency, our economy, and our future. We must be the alternative course. We can’t be that if all we say is no. Our plans must be clear, compelling, and first to the table. Our plans must have at least one common thread -- they must make America stronger. Better education strengthens our kids; better healthcare strengthens our citizens; and bringing our budget into balance strengthens our economy and preserves our future. Today, as much as ever, conservative principles are absolutely essential to keeping America strong and prosperous and free.

ON THE "STIMULUS" PLAN: 

The President has already moved to stop our economy’s downward spiral. Parts of the stimulus will, in fact, do some good. But too much of the bill was short-sighted and wasteful. Every single Republican in Congress voted in favor of a better stimulus plan, one that focused on creating jobs immediately. But Congressional Democrats couldn’t restrain themselves from larding up their bill with tens of billions of dollars for their political friends. Republicans wanted to stimulate the economy, Democrats wanted to stimulate the government. Conservatives in the House and Senate stood their ground and voted no -- and they were absolutely right. 

So far, the administration has been unclear on what it will do to address the huge decline in the pool of risk and investment capital. These losses will be felt in businesses that don’t start-up and grow, and in jobs that don’t get created. To grow the pool of investment capital, the last thing you’d do is to raise taxes on investment, as the President has proposed. The surest, most obvious course is to rule out higher taxes on investment. I would propose going one step further. For all middle-class Americans, we ought to abolish the tax on interest, dividends and capital gains.

ON LIBERAL HYPOCRISY: 

For the last several years, we’ve heard liberals moaning about the 700 billion dollars that have been spent over six years to win freedom in Iraq. They have now spent more than that in 30 days. And with a government almost 12 trillion dollars in debt, any unnecessary spending puts at risk the creditworthiness of the United States. If the world loses confidence in our currency, that could cause a run on the dollar, or hyperinflation that would wipe out savings and devastate the Middle Class. President Obama says he hopes to cut the deficit in half after four years -- does that mean a deficit in 2012 of 600 billion dollars? No president should accept such a staggering deficit, much less hold it up as a national goal. This is the time to pare back government spending. It is not the time to fulfill every liberal dream and spend America into catastrophe.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                      RETURN TO HOME PAGE

We Knew It Was Coming: Part II

In last week’s article that dealt with cuts in the defense budget I outlined a scenario in which President Obama’s campaign promise to immediately withdraw American troops from Iraq would result in the world facing all widespread conflicts in many parts of the world in early 2012, most notably in Iraq. After his Friday speech to U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune, N.C in which he announce that he would a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops in Iraq after the August 31, 2010 pullout of all ”combat troops”, I must admit that eating crow tastes as bad as it sounds, but I am not alone at the table. If the Prez wants to imply that those troops being left behind are not combat troops to make his adoring fans feel better, so be it. Anyone who has an I.Q. over 80 knows better, but what the heck? Actually, those troops that will be a part of the early pullout are not engaging in that many “hostile actions”, even now. As an editorial in today’s issue of Opinion Journal entitled Obama's Bush Vindication states, “That ‘transitional force’ is roughly the size of the U.S. military presence in South Korea through the Cold War. And its mission, involving training of Iraqi forces, U.S. force protection and ‘targeted counterterrorism missions,’ largely describes what the U.S. is already doing in Iraq.”

Whatever terms the President used, his announced plan thankfully differs significantly from his campaign promises to pull out all of the troops immediately. Reportedly, this new development rankles some of his own party members in Congress, but it also vindicates the Bush Administration’s policies in the war, especially the troop surge that led to victory in the war. Obama even went so far as to heap praise on Generals Petraeus and Odierno as "two of our finest generals." You’ve come a long way, baby.

When you combine this decision with that of over a week ago to send an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, you have to acknowledge that even the most liberal administration in our nation’s history cannot be wrong 100% of the time; 98% maybe, but not 100%.

The question remains, however, as to how the president’s promise to cut deficit spending in half by 2012 will come about unless defense spending is slashed. One way he could do it would be by changing our commitment to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan by withdrawing our troops if the current stalemate continues. The War in Iraq proved that Americans do not have the stomach to engage in a long, drawn out war regardless of the consequences that withdrawal would bring about. For Americans, reality and common sense can be quickly rationalized away if they do not provide instantaneous positive results. Barack Obama, the penultimate politician, could play this like a Stradivarius.

There is, however, an equally obvious strategy to follow, and the president made very brief and vague reference to it in his budget speech, in which he said, “We’ll … reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.” There was one brief sentence that was easy to overlook, but still provides sufficient justification for doing almost anything. For example, it could easily be used to justify ending production of the Air Force’s F-22 Talon fighter program long before the originally planned numbers are produced and deployed. At this time, the advanced fighter aircraft would not provide sufficient additional benefits in the types of conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan to justify the costs of the program. If budget cuts have to be made, this would be an easy target for an administration that has yet to display any semblance of historical or military acumen. It would be far better to place this program on a indefinite hold with frequent reviews that would allow its rapid reinstatement if the world situation changes, as it has a tendency to do from time to time. If the need ever arose to be capable of achieving aerial superiority over a battlefield, this weapon would be the only one with the advanced technical capabilities to accomplish it. Thus far, there is only one wing in the Air Force that has taken operational deliveries of this system, and that would not be enough to carry the day. 

At the same time, we totally agree with the president’s decision to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, and to increase the pay of those who are serving their country. Today’s problems require today’s solutions, and once again, we applaud the president’s decision. 

Having said all of that, let’s now discuss the $30M set aside in the stimulus spending bill to save the California harvest mouse…._____________________________

Related article

Declining Defense
Obama's budget does cut one federal department
March 2, 2009 at Wall Street Journal Online

For all of his lavish new spending plans, President Obama is making one major exception: defense. His fiscal 2010 budget telegraphs that Pentagon spending is going to be under pressure in the years going forward.
_____________________________

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                      RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Inroducing… 

Today’s “Denver Tea Party”, one of many conservative rallies that were held around the country to protest the Obama Administration’s spending proposals, was somewhat disappointing. Possibly because of the cold, crisp weather, the turnout was probably only one-fifth of last week’s rally to protest the President’s signing in Denver of the misnamed “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”, a.k.a. the “Economic Stimulant Bill” (I purposely did not use the word “Stimulus”), a.k.a. the “Overcoming 40 Years of Democratic Frustration Bill”. 

Not to belittle a brief but rousing speech by Denver’s best known Conservative, Jon Caldera, the highlight from my perspective was meeting a young man (anyone under 50 is young, to me) who announced his intention to run for Colorado’s 7th Congressional District seat in 2010 against the Democratic incumbent, Ed “Smiley” Perlmutter. Brian T. Campbell, Sr. is a 40 year-old businessman and entrepreneur from the Denver suburb of Arvada. He is married and is the father of five children. His background and qualifications can be seen at his website BrianTCampbellSr.com. 

What I found encouraging, in addition to Mr. Campbell’s obvious courage, drive, speaking ability, and conservative ideals was the fact that well over a year before the campaign begins, the CD-7, which is my home district, already has a candidate who is making his name known and building his candidacy. This is far different from the 2008 campaign, where the candidate was a political unknown until well after he threw his hat into the ring at the District Convention. John Lerew was a very qualified candidate as well as a personal friend, but his start came so late that he was unable to overcome the obvious advantage that is held by an incumbent opponent. 

In 2006, the Republicans ran one of its rising young stars, Rick O’Donnell, to take the seat being vacated by fellow Republican Bob Beauprez. Unfortunately for Rick, he became a victim of the overwhelming Democratic congressional sweep that year, a very bitter defeat for him as well as for those of us who had worked so hard on his behalf. 

The D&C wishes the best of luck to Brian in his campaign.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                      RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Paying Tribute, Tennessee Style

In Tennessee, drivers pull off the road and stop for funeral processions. Nobody moves until the last car has gone by.

What follows is a message from Vicki Pierce about her nephew James' funeral (he was serving our country in Iraq ). I do not know Vicki. Her message came to me in an e-mail from a dear friend, Margaret Bumgarner, who lives near Seattle. Nonetheless, it is a tribute not only to a young man who gave his life for his country, but to the people of Tennessee and throughout the South who know the true  meaning of patriotism. Here is Vicki’s message:

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                      RETURN TO HOME PAGE

We Knew It Was Coming 

Tonight we will be hearing how our new president plans to cut the budget deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. This comes from the man who has just presided over the biggest government spending bill in U.S. history. If there were any chance that the 2009 Economic Stimulus Bill would be successful in reviving the nation’s economy, and if it were coming from anyone other than the most liberal president in that same U.S. history, his assertion might be credible. Although you might not notice it if you are watching Obama’s State-of-the-Union speech that isn’t one, he will periodically be giving mental winks to House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid, in effect saying “let me and my hypnotic speaking ability handle this; you don’t have the credibility. It’s not like anyone will remember this three years from now, anyway.” 

There will be cuts made to government spending in the next three years. There is no choice whatsoever, and even the Dems know this. Three more years like this one would not only bankrupt the country, but also set the world’s economy back to the 1930s and beyond. The question is--where will these cuts be made? The majority of spending today goes for non-discretionary items like Social Security, Medicare, and paying interest on the National Debt. The recently signed economic stimulus package also calls for money to be spent as far out as 2011 on various pork-barrel projects to which we are now committed. No doubt, health care spending by the government will skyrocket, as will other social programs to which the American people will have become addicted.  

There is, however, one area that is always the favorite of Democrats for sharp reductions, and that is in national defense. We saw it under President Carter, and we saw it under President Clinton.  We also heard promises of it from presidential candidate Barack Obama. There is just something about defense spending that causes Democrats to get out not only their scalpels, but their axes and chain saws as well. For one thing, defense spending, or lack thereof, does not result in guaranteed votes like domestic spending does. The theory goes something like this: we can save significant amounts of money by reducing defense spending and making much smaller increases for diplomacy, reducing the need for a strong military. Moreover, today we have such an honest, charismatic, and apologetic president that the threats that we are facing will diminish, further reducing the need for large amounts of defense spending. Once again, we will make the serious mistake of ascribing to our enemies the same sets of values, the same goals, and the same thought processes that we have. Once again, we will look upon the world as we wish it would be, instead of how it is. And once again, Americans will awake to the reality that we do not have sufficient strength and foresight to defend ourselves, as we did on 9/11. Consider the following scenario. 

It is the Spring of 2012. A year earlier, the Iranian Ayatollahs announced that they now had sufficient nuclear weapons and delivery systems on hand to not only annihilate Israel, but to also threaten Riyadh, Cairo, and a few European cities. Not wishing to antagonize the Iranians into using them, the Administration acquiesces as Hezbollah finally takes over Lebanon, now threatening both Israel and Jordan. With no American troops left in a still-vulnerable Iraq, Iranian forces mass along their border with Iraq while Syrian forces do the same on their shared border. Iraq is theirs for the picking, and America has insufficient air, land, or sea forces to prevent it without resorting to nuclear retaliation. A Shi’ite puppet government is set up in Baghdad, and a Sunni government in Fallujah. Sensing the opportunity, Turkey invades northern Iraq to finally resolve its conflict with the Kurds. Iraq ceases to exist. Meanwhile, Russia also takes advantage of the world’s distraction to invade and occupy Georgia, while fomenting unrest in the former Soviet republics of Kirghizstan and Uzbekistan. Israel, recognizing that its back is up against the wall and seeing that it can no longer count upon its American ally, launches full-scale nuclear attacks on Iran and Syria. In retaliation, Iran launches limited nuclear attacks on Israel, killing one-fourth of the Israeli population.  Sensing Israeli weakness in the aftermath of these attacks, Hezbollah launches full-scale attacks on northern Israel, but after some limited success, the Israeli army is able to fend off the attacks while also reoccupying Gaza to its south. An unstable standoff results while Israel tries to rebuild. 

And Americans will be scratching their heads wondering what went wrong, just as we have always done. 

An unlikely scenario? Only to those who are naïve, enough to think that peace comes through disarming America, or to believe that America has higher priorities than preventing this type of conflict. The liberal left in this country has not been able to grasp the realities in the world situation since the days of Estes Kefauver and Scoop Jackson. This is largely because they have learned that it is easier to gain votes and stay in power by promoting generous give-away programs. Their compliant toadies in the print and television media go along with this ruse by focusing only on the negatives of our military efforts, such as body counts and the number of civilians killed. Seldom are the victories and successes reported. To do so would belie the defeatist agenda and pacifist outlook of its liberal masters. 

Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival. --  W. Edwards Deming (1900 - 1993)
_____________________________

Related article

Declining Defense
Obama's budget does cut one federal department
March 2, 2009 at Wall Street Journal Online

For all of his lavish new spending plans, President Obama is making one major exception: defense. His fiscal 2010 budget telegraphs that Pentagon spending is going to be under pressure in the years going forward.
_____________________________

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                      RETURN TO HOME PAGE

That Was the Week That Was 

That old television show that was also known as TW3, had a very brief life span of less than a year in 1964 and 1965 but was one of my all-time favorites. The series lampooned the news stories of the previous week and made things seem far less serious and foreboding than they actually were.

It seems that we could use a little bit of that humor these days, but it would probably be considered not to be politically correct, or, at least it would not be consistent with the crisis-hysteria that is the stock in trade of today’s media. Instead, today we have to almost solely on the internet satire provided by ScrappleFace and IOWAHAWK to get our yuks. 

While this past week has not been humorous for yours truly, it has been somewhat hectic. I should apologize to The D&C’s readers for the lack of new content, but it was not due to a causative lack of subject material. For example, on Tuesday there was the Conservative rally at the State Capitol here in Denver, protesting the President’s signing of the Economic Stimulus Bill just a few miles away at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, an oxymoronic juxtaposition if there ever was one. It was an impromptu affair, organized by the Colorado Independence Institute and Americans for Prosperity, with help from the Colorado Republican headquarters. Determined to participate in the event, a good portion of Monday and early Tuesday were used up in preparing signs for the rally. 

The rally’s speakers, which included a certain new Colorado resident by the name of Michelle Malkin, had the raucous crowd exuberant and energetic. With the crowd chanting “no more pork”, few people paid attention to the cold, stiff wind that almost blew signs and flags away.  Along with several hundred other protesters who participated in the rally, there was a small group of us representing the Denver Metro Chapter of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM).      

Some of the later reaction to the rally was both interesting and amusing, both on the internet as well as in the newspapers. Of course, there were those who thought that by having the rally we were showing that the people of Denver were inhospitable and rude to the president. I find it ironic that these same people would not have found anti-war rallies to be rude and inhospitable when President Bush visited different cities during his tenure in office. Perhaps they expect us to believe that those rallies were different, that they were for a “worthy” cause. Protesting the waste of almost a trillion dollars on pork projects is not inhospitable and rude. But those who were asking why Republicans and conservatives could not compromise and go along with the program just don’t get it. For some reason or other, they are incapable of understanding that almost everything that the new president and the Democratic Congress have done thus far directly contradict basic conservative principles. Perhaps they do not understand because those who ask us to compromise our principles have none of their own, or do not understand why we believe that you cannot compromise basic principles in an effort to “just get along”. To do so would be intellectual dishonesty. Condescending to the gradual drift toward European Socialism would, to us, be bordering on treason. There may be some among us who are willing to do so, but those people will learn that they are on their own, and will no longer be among us. 

The following morning, Jeff Schreiber published on his website, America’s Right, an article entitled Have We Learned Nothing? with the sub-headline of Obama proposes solving the housing crisis with the very policies and attitudes which caused the crisis in the first place.

In it, he describes the economic trials and tribulations that he and his family have been going through, the same as so many other young couples in America have been going through. He writes,

Jeff was not venting his frustrations here at people who, for reasons beyond their control, have found themselves in dire financial straits and have a legitimate need for assistance. If, for example, the big three automakers carry through on their threats to lay off tens of thousands of workers, there will be people with genuine needs for public assistance. With few exceptions, these people are not in their difficult situations because of a lack of judgment or personal responsibility. Instead, Jeff’s frustrations, like those of other conservatives, are directed toward both individuals and institutions that have carelessly or intentionally placed themselves in situations where they can no longer keep their heads above water. For example, Jeff writes,

He later goes on to write,

After reading Jeff’s rant, I felt that my time preparing for and spent at Tuesday’s rally was all the more worthwhile and justified. I wanted to tell him that it was not City Hall, but rather the State Capitol, and that I was standing in for him, holding my sign. Since I have retired, I have had the time to do these things; Jeff does not.

The fire in my belly carried over into Wednesday evening, when I attended the monthly meeting of the Denver Chapter of CCM. It was a better-than-average meeting, with an interesting guest speaker and solid input from our State CCM Chairman, former Colorado Rep. Bob Beauprez. Rep. Beauprez had been unable to attend Tuesday’s rally, but commended those of us who were able to participate. The main reason that I mention this meeting, however, is to explain what was taking place during the remainder of the week when I could have been writing and posting article on this website. Unexpectedly, our chapter’s webmaster, who in the past had kept our website updated and current, stepped down for reasons that I will not go into here. Inasmuch as I had participated in the original design of the website and seemed to be the only person in attendance with website experience, I feigned reluctance at taking it on but finally agreed to do so. Actually, I had some ideas for some improvements that I had been keeping to myself so as to not step on anyone’s toes. However, when given to opportunity to make those changes, I jumped right in. Therefore, that is where Thursday and Friday went, basically redesigning the entire website, which can be seen HERE.  

Which brings us to the weekend, the days when I usually can be found at my keyboard in my messy “office”, preparing the new week’s edition of The D&C. Quite often there is a purely enjoyable and important interlude on Saturday mornings when I spend a few hours kicking back with one of my sons and my youngest grandson Dylan, age 2½. Male bonding, and all of that, you know. Besides, it give’s Dylan’s Mom a chance to spend some time doing what she wants to do, even if she is only “sleeping in”. That is important now that she is carrying Dylan’s little sister, who is planning to make her appearance sometime in June. Beside all of that, it gives Grandpa a chance to be a kid again. 

Occasionally, when Dylan is wrapped up in some little project or discovering a new toy, his Dad and I will talk about many things, even discussing politics from time to time. Now Dan is what I would classify as a Moderate/Independent, if I had to classify him. Which means he frequently shocks my sock off.  For example, a few months ago, during the presidential campaign, he informed me that he would be voting for Barack Obama. His rationale at that time was that as a highly ranked graduate of his Harvard Law School class, he was therefore far more intelligent than his rival, who had graduated near the bottom of his class from the U.S. Naval Academy. I soon learned that it was a waste of time to contest his assertion, but I did, anyway, with a response that I almost equally as irrational. I replied that graduating anywhere in his class from Annapolis would make John McCain better qualified to be the president than a highly placed graduate of Harvard Law School. I think that my military academy background got the better of me. A better response may have been that McCain’s academy education, plus his military service and his extensive time in Washington politics gave him far more knowledge and experience than Obama. Would’a, should’a, could’a. But I did not, and we let it hang there, young Dan being somewhat incredulous that I could make such a statement. I still believe it to be true, however. 

This time it was somewhat different. How the dialogue turned again to politics, I do not remember. Since that last episode, I had decided to not broach the subject again since I knew that my son was a hardheaded as his Dad, and nothing good would come of it. However, when it did come up, Dan explained how, in 2004, he had voted for George Bush because of the fine job that Bush was doing with the war and in protecting America from further terrorist attacks. Good for him, I thought; now we are getting somewhere. Then he said that he had voted for Obama this time, simply because Obama offered so many people the promise of hope and change. I did not respond with what I was thinking; that, throughout the campaign, Obama had never really explained what he meant by “hope and change”, and that it was only since he was sworn into office that we are really getting to see what he meant by “hope and change”. Instead, the public had been swayed by his charisma and flowing rhetoric, thinking that, whatever “hope and change” were, they had to be for the good since he had said it so well. I did not ask Dan if he approved of the “change” that he has seen thus far, or even if he was fully aware of it. Nor did I ask him if Obama’s actions had truly given him any new “hope” for the future that he did not already have. Dan and his wife both have fairly well paying and secure management jobs in, and they are not going through the stress that Jeff Schreiber described in his article. I did not ask him, for example, how Obama’s Stimulus Package will actually revive the economy, or simply extend the economic downturn while taking away much of our freedom and liberty. I did not ask him if it mattered that we were rapidly advancing toward a system similar to European Socialism. I did not ask him, but I wish I had.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                      RETURN TO HOME PAGE