Conservatives anxious to retake the Senate and White House are obsessed with winning those political battles, but is it right to emulate Liberal Progressive Democrats who focus on winning at all costs, cheating at the voting booth and count, sacrificing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Judeo-Christian principles, and immutable Natural Law?
Philosophy of many holds that GOP focus needs to be on “Winning, Winning, Winning.” Green Bay football coach Vince Lombardi preached this philosophy to his Packers football team members; “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” If that is valid theory, Conservatives are no different than Liberals, or just as bad. Winning if both parties are identical and stand for the same thing; what is the point; six of one or a half dozen of the other, a zero sum game.
During the 1960s, Lombardi guided the Packers to three straight and five total NFL championships in seven years, including winning the first two Super Bowls following the 1966 and 1967 NFL seasons.
Not that it applies to Lombardi and his “Winning is the only thing,” Jesus warned, “What good is it to gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of your own soul?”
“The lesser of two evils” principle holds to the political theory that of two bad choices, one is not as bad as the other, and should therefore be chosen over the one that is perceived to be more evil.
The conundrum is that evil is evil, and acceptance of some evil because it is not as bad as another evil, is a path to permanent error as evil will never be overcome; just kicking the proverbial can down the road for the umpteenth time. Acceptance of the lesser evil invariably leads to the greater evil.
It is too soon in early Feb 2014 to test the lesser evil of presidential candidates, but never-ending campaigning has actually been going on since the 2012 election, and continuing to concentrate on the 2016 presidential election. Let candidates prove their mettle by what they do, not what they say. Been there; Done that; and all gotten in return was Obama and his catastrophic ObamaCare, the Obama version of "CHANGE,“ transformation of the U.S. into unconstitutional governance.
Obama WANTED to be President, and the current class of pretenders wants the same thing. NJ Governor Chris Christie already imploded with his petty Bridgegate escapade. More significant is the fact that Christie is the prima facie face of the despised RINO. The 1912 cast of GOP wannabes have run their course and there is no point to reheat expired outdated candidates. Senator Rand Paul and Rep. Ted Cruz are Johnny-on-the-spot pretenders awaiting "certain” victory in 2016, if nominated.
Again, Biblical wisdom: “The man who is faithful in the little things will be faithful in the big things.” Congress cannot be accused of having any wisdom, let alone Biblical Wisdom, but collude to use simulated conventional wisdom and political correctness to sell out the Constitution and rely on vague undefined American Values.
Senator Ted Cruz is a viable presidential candidate except for the problem of his dual citizenship in Canada and the U.S. that presents the same sort of problem the GOP objected to in Obama, whose father was a citizen of the U.K. and therefore unable to transfer American citizenship to Barack. Democrats, supported by media, will swarm over the issue of citizenship, muddying the political waters to distract from the fact that Cruz is a significant candidate in his own right.
Senator Rand Paul is in a different category, as he has shifted his view to concentrate on winning, which by his rationale means appealing to all the groups that carried and sustained Obama in power. Paul is already watering down the Conservative message, a chink in Conservative armor that seeks to become more like Democrats. Perish the thought.
The electorate is basically ill-informed as a poll finds that one in four Americans are so poorly educated due to policies of the Department of Education, as to be unaware that the Earth orbits the Sun.
To be gifted to be President, or King for a day, the start would be to clean up the U.S. mess by first pulling a “Moses,” smashing the carved-in-stone commandments of bureaucracies like EPA, Education, and more, that have tens of thousands of “employees” constantly carving rules and regulations that choke jobs, economy, and country.
The new CEO, or Queen For A Day, should veto any congressional bill measured by the pound or massive pages as in encyclopedias. If a Bill cannot be understood or read in a half-hour, it should be vetoed and sent back for Congress to shrink it down.
Members of Congress complaining about waste, fraud, duplication, and abuse, would be called out publicly, to put up or shut up. If they say a program or expenditure is wasteful etc., they should be required to present a bill to that effect, and undo the damage. The new CEO should put forth a budget based on the proven federal tax and fee income four years back.
And not lastly, all welfare would be excluded from “self-supporting” able-bodied who have no direct familial responsibility, or no intention to provide for themselves. As to the rest, there would be declining unemployment benefits to encourage getting a job, and no benefits of any kind to prisoners and those living outside the U.S.
Means testing would apply to any and all so-called Entitlements. IRS would be instructed to data-base refunds to alert them and head off possibly fraudulent multiple refunds to the same address. Much much more, but “One Day At A Time,” without achieving some saving or cut in expenditure. Duplicate programs and bureaucracies would be eliminated immediately.
Harry Gross conducted the Link-Gross CPA training course in Philadelphia in the 1960s, and Harry wisely taught the philosophy: “Do the easy questions first, put the more difficult perplexing questions in the background, and suddenly the hard stuff will look easy, and you will have become a CPA,” and so it came to be. Simplicity is the key element. Reaching too far leads to the danger of going over one of the many cliffs endangering U.S. welfare.
Democracy by itself will not work as the Founders foresaw, so they set government up as a Republic in which the Senate would balance out the majority in the House that is too quick to vote “Free Stuff.” The deliberative Senate would need 60 votes, not 50, to enable the House majority rush to give benefits to those who have not earned them.
Senator Reid threatens the so-called “Nuclear Option” that would enable the Senate to operate on a simple majority, contrary to the protections built into the Constitution by the Founders. If the majority is all that is necessary, what justifies the existence of the Senate?
The “National popular vote movement” is a Liberal Democratic scheme to guarantee Democrats permanent control of the soon to be totally Socialist Government.
“National Popular vote” is not desirable for a free America. The bill guarantees the Presidency to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in the entire U.S. The most populous States could vote en masse, thwarting the original concept of States Rights. Likewise, the Party that has a history and expertise of stuffing the ballot box will win every time. That is how it is done in Third World countries. If everything in this country is simple majority, “We is dead meat.” The majority has been proven to be too often wrong.
Liberals permanently, regardless of scandals, have more than 90% of the Black vote, substantial majority among Brown and Latino voters, and combined with the “47%,” some included in the Black and Latino voters, along with died-in-the-wool Democrat and Liberal voters, abortionist and free contraceptive blocs, and GOP haters; Republicans may have seen the last of their effectiveness as a political party.
Who will be the presidential nominees for the 2016 presidential election? Who cares? Take care of today and tomorrow will take care of itself. Another aspect is to take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves.
Start a conversation using these share links: