We are launching a new website, so if you do not come to use through our url http://www.realityslate.com then please follow us and check out or new website. We are constantly updating this new website so please check back often and find our new features and feel free to sign up for an account or to subscribe to one of our blogs.
I wanted to give you the reader and listener some insight on my perspective and where my political philosophy was formed and how this philosophy comes through in podcast and the blog.
My political awareness starts before my teenage years. Mom spent nearly every year at the November polls. Dad was an idealist. He was deeply religious, charitable and deeply mistrustful of government. I remember in one of the small towns where I grew up, there was a machine shop with the large sign on the upper wall which read "Get Us Out Of The United Nations." There was a massive union steel plant in town where nearly everyone's dad, except mine, worked. This was an environment steeped in politics, from the far right, to populist protectionism.
I was a child of the late 80's and early 90's. High School and junior high was a time of tremendous change, both nationally and internationally. G.W. Bush crushed Dukakis in the '88 election. I remember that we had voting booths in my middle school and while people were voting a kid walking through halls screamed "vote socialist." I learned more about the many different direction that people wanted to see the country go.
One direction that many wanted the country to go was in victim classification. The American Disability Act (ADA) was past through Congress and made law. The was significant to me because I was in a car accident as a young child and to this day have only partial use of my right arm. The ADA was designed, to a small extent, for people like me. The odd thing about it was that while there was so much effort being put to victim classification, I was blessed to have the parents that I did, (my father isn't still with us). My parents never let me take the road of the disabled kid. So this 'benevolent' new program designed to protect me, was condescending.
Victim classification was also made plain in the Rodney King riots. I had a teacher tell the class the morning that the riots broke out that we, the white kids in the class, bore a special responsibility for the 'unjust' verdict of the case. He also defended the actions of the rioters while screaming to the class that we were all 'Racists.' Later that day I found myself debating with another young man about rioting being what I saw as a silly way to make a point. It also seemed a little contradictory to me, that my teacher and this young man, were defending the actions of people destroying their own neighborhoods, but they called me a 'Racist.' It was then that I started to realize that victim classification is to absolve the victim of any personal responsibility.
Some time later there were large protests in front of the Utah Governors mansion in Salt Lake City because of capital punishment case, deemed the 'Hi-Fi Killers.' In this case, two Caribbean men had robbed a Hi-Fi store in northern Utah. During the robbery the two men had tortured, raped and killed some of the innocent people caught in the store during the robbery. The protesters were calling the death penalty against these two men racist. This incident showed me that racism could be code for anything that protesters disagreed with.
The Middle East Awareness (first look)
This was the time of the Rushdie book "Satanic Verses." In my government class, in high school, there was an Iranian born girl, who stood in front of the class to defend her religion. She made no mention of the death warrant that had been put out on Rushdie by the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, but I was exited to see her defend her faith in front of a room full of adolescent Christians and nonreligious students. This was also the time of the end of the ten year war, between Iran and Iraq, and the first U.S. 'Gulf War.' The Middle East was becoming less distant every day. This hit home when I saw my own brother ship off to war in "Operation Desert Storm," the official name of the first 'Gulf War.'
Later I had friends from Iraq who were Kurdish and Shi'a. I learned that the Middle East was, and is, a place of many different voices and perspectives. I did find however that there were many among the Middle Eastern immigrants who bought into conspiracy theories. I recall a news article from a Middle Eastern newspaper that one of my friends had, showed Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat, and Yitchak Rabin and the headline read, "Negotiations to Perpetuate the Occupation." Other Middle Eastern friends were eager to tell me that King Hussein of Jordan was a U.S. spy for the C.I.A. or that U.S. policy was run from Tel Aviv.
Much later, after Sept. 11, 2001, many of my friends from the Middle East had begun to question the conspiracies that they had been taught and so many of them believed. Some asked how the United States who had given them so much freedom and opportunity, could be the same country that they had been taught to hate their whole lives. Many of them began to resent the religious hierarchy that had taught them to hate the United States. Another friend, started to learn about multi-tiered government, checks and balances and other distinctive parts of a republican democracy, which caused him to wonder why real republican democracies don't exist in the Middle East. His indignation towards those who defended the broken mentalities and broken governments started to come to a head when he would ask things like, "why is it that Arab leaders kill their own people and the leaders of the United States and Israel do not kill their own people?" Then he would add, partially to upset the Middle Easterner he was talking to, "perhaps we would be better off in Iraq under Sharon." Sharon, of course, being the Prime Minister of Israel at the time. I learned from the bravery of this friend, what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said, "When given a choice between despotism and liberty, free people will always choose the latter."
Idealism versus Maturity.
As most people did in the 1990's, I was bombarded with idealistic and left wing ideas. "Truths" were chanted at me as if those of us at that time had no idea how to discern truth. We heard television ads telling us it was our selfish need to give birth to babies that was destroying the planet; others said, car exhaust was poisoning us. I even had a girl once tell me that breaking Styrofoam cups was destroying the ozone layer. All of this nonsense was the "truth" of the day. Luckily, I had been taught to look objectively for the truth by my parents and older siblings. It occurred to me that if things like the ads on television starting in the 80's told us that Brazil was cutting down the amount of trees the size of Connecticut every month, that now by the early 90's, Brazil must have no more forest. Any time I looked at the "truth" of the day, I found that it's blatant hypocrisy was as transparent as the Clinton administrations claim that 1991 had the worst economic crisis in 50 years.
It was time to grow up. All the propaganda that had been pounded down our throats, it was all fitting for a preadolescent idealism. Once I had a job, had to pay bills, had to raise kids, none of that 1960's like mentality made any sense any more.
Why Reality Slate?
I grew up in the time of Rush Limbaugh; I idealized Michael Medved, Dennis Praeger, and I always wanted to be like one of these guys. I always admired the way they, specifically Praeger and Medved, have a calm and intellectual perspective on the issues of the day. There are so many others in talk radio, however, who get caught up in conspiracy theory, emotional arguments or "anti-establishment" talk that they resemble the coffee shop ranters of the early 90's, rather than real political observers.
When I finally had a group of people who shared my passion for independent thought and Conservative values, without the muddy water of emotional fluff, it was time for Reality Slate to come about.
All the way back to Johnson and McGovern the liberal baby-boomer generation has been waiting for their President and it seem that the, much awaited, day has come. The have been hoping for a President who shares the view of the world that the Baby-Boomer Liberals have been been talking about since the Vietnam War. In this world view the U.S. is an imperialist, evil country. In the Sixties Kid view, the U.S. ignores and exploits the poor, at home and abroad. They believe that a benevolent government can spread 'aid' to the poor, after taking the 'aid' from wealthy Americans, and after the 'aid' is distributed, we will all live in a loving world of no poor, and no war.
The Sixties Kids had a time when they felt that they could change the world. After violent riots to protest the 'evil' Vietnam war, there was a time when they believed that the world that had been moving in a direction of the unfairness of capitalism. Only an enlightened movement, espoused by the Sixties Kids, could heal the ailing earth. They the Sixties Kids have had no luck in achieving a U.S. President who can truly change the world into the utopia they had hoped for.
McGovern was the first presidential candidate who identified with the Liberal Baby-Boomer world view. There was a ground swell of excitement around the McGovern campaign. He was a man who said all the idealist rhetoric that the 'Kids' had been hoping to hear. McGovern's campaign orchestrated mass young voter registration drives at college campuses, the home for liberal idealism, and the campaign had an almost cult-like following.
McGovern, they believed, could make up the shortfalls of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Kennedy, of course, had been killed before he could change the world. (Liberal Baby-Boomers ignore the fact the Kennedy was a moderate who, had committed troops to Southeast Asia and was the first president to significantly cut FDR's benevolent income taxes.) Johnson had idealistic potential, with the Great Society era war on poverty. He wisely invoked nuclear war and the saving grace of the U.N. to defeat the war-monger Goldwater, but he did keep troops in Vietnam, so he could not be counted as a Sixties Kid hero.
Alas McGovern was defeated by the evil Richard Nixon, and many of the 'Kids' lamented the end of 'the era of love.'
Carter was seen by the Sixties Kid's as having the idealist world view potential. He spent a whole bunch of money on the poor; he met with world leaders, especially in the Middle East and ushered in a time of understanding. He even gave the Panama Canal to Panama. Carter pushed for higher fuel efficiency standards and sent 'aid to undeserved' and underdeveloped countries, but he pushed for the U.S. to utilize natural resources like oil reserves, Carter signed the bill to set ANWR aside for exploration , plus he was overtly religious, so his designation as a Sixties Kid hero is, at best, dubious.
Carter only served one term and then came twelve years of 'the dark times' for liberal idealism the Reagan/Bush era. This time was so dark for Sixties Kids that they saw attacks on the peaceful regime of Qaddafi in Libya, U.S. funded wars on leftists in South America, a proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and sweeping tax cuts. The speaker of the house, O'neal, who should have stood up to idealist principles, working with Reagan, and that was only in the first eight years. If one then adds the first war on Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Talk Radio, in the next four years, the Reagan/Bush era is a time of great Sixties Kid horror. Then topped off by Reagan and Bush having landslide victories over potential Liberal Idealist heroes like Micheal Dukakis and Walter Mondale. Mondale, achieved the title of Bay-Boomer liberal icon when his V.P. pick was a woman. To this day the Sixties Kid's view the Reagan/Bush era with disdain.
Clinton was a breath of fresh air after after the 80's and early 90's with horrible Republican Presidents. Clinton had Kennedyesque charm and delicious rhetoric that caused the liberal Baby-Boomer contingent to swoon.
The problems, however, for a new day of a more Ideal world view, started quickly. Universal Health Care was defeated while Talk Radio was growing in influence. Then disaster struck, for the Sixties Kids, in 94' when Gingrich and the Republicans swept into the House of Representatives and pushed through an agenda that made the Liberal Ideal World View seem even more distant.
For the Liberal Ideal World View, the Clinton Era is a mixed bag. He did pass an Assault Weapons Ban; and spent a tremendous amount of time talking peace with Yasser Arafat and with Northern Ireland leaders. These accomplishments are great from the Sixties Kids perspective, but there was plenty of downside to the Clinton Era. A Gingrich brokered balanced budget, Welfare Reform, troops in Bosnia and Kosovo and far too cozy of a relationship with big business, causing the Liberal Baby-Boomers to pause at their reflections of the Clinton 90's.
The Bush Era spelled utter disaster to the 'Kids.' Bush's "War on Terror" is only met with Liberal Idealist hatred. For the Sixties Kids, Bush's popularity was simple exasperating. They saw a bumbling cowboy who spoke plainly about his belief in God, and a clear line of good and evil in the world. Even when Bush had more liberal plans the Baby-Boomer Liberals had nothing positive to say. For them the only bright spot in the the era of W. was when the House of Representatives was finally being controlled by a Sixty Kid Feminist in Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the house.
Now Sixties Kids Can breath a collective sigh of relief. They finally have a President that shares their Liberal Ideal World View, he is pushing for Universal Heath Care again, The "War on Terror" is in the past, corporations are finally seen as evil, as are Wall Street types, stricter laws on firearms are coming, unions could make a comeback, the Green agenda is being forced on the country and the Congress is rubber stamping anything that the administration wants.
What lessons are to be learned about past Liberal Idealist attempts at the Presidency? How did this administration finally achieved the long awaited goal of a Liberal Baby Boomer approved Presidency? The answers are many but brilliantly simple.
'The sky is falling' will get you elected. The Clinton Administration learned this but this administration was much better at getting a big spending agenda. If the administration screams that 'the sky is falling' then a bill can be passed that will repay every supporter group in the country.
Mondale actually said that he would raise the deficit to pay for his Liberal agenda. This was naive to say the least. The current administration has taught us that if the deficit will rapidly increase, you only have to deny it and say that it will be cut in half by some arbitrary date, and then blame the deficit, which your administration made worse, on the last administration.
Use simple terms. If Dukakis and Kerry taught us anything, it is that big words scare people. Little words are the way to go, preferably one syllable if possible i.e, 'Hope,' 'Change,'etc.
People like to pay fewer taxes, so tell them that they will, while the average person, will pay more in goods and services, due to higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy few. A tax credit is something that was once given to people who pay taxes, but one can rename a tax credit for money that you give to people who don't pay taxes. (This point is one that the Sixties Kids love.)
The Clinton Era bipartisanship didn't advance the Liberal World View enough, so rename bipartisanship to when a few in the other party agree with your agenda. There is no need to show compromise like Clinton did especially when it doesn't advance your liberal agenda.
Terms like responsibility, fiscal prudence, and toughness, are words that most conservatives like, but redefine them to meet your agenda so theses words can justify nearly anything.
The end lesson of the forty year aspiration of electing a Sixties Kid approved president, is that the candidate must mask intentions and perspectives. Only when elected can the new leader start pushing the agenda of the Ideal Liberal World View. Once the agenda is being achieved, one simply has to deny pushing it and explain that the objectives are to fix a crisis. If people do catch on to what the agenda really is, than say things like ' hey...I was elected to promote change.' (Note the use of a one syllable, nondescript word.)
I started the previous post on Friday before the good news about the hostage situation ending and the U.S. captain surviving. I have just a bit to add now that things in this situation have changed.
We are still learning about what went on off the coast of Somalia, but the Navy did the right thing by killing the Terrorist Pirates. Questions remain, why did this action take so long, and why are we bringing the Terrorist scum, who survived theNavy raid, to the U.S? Add the discussion of bringing 'Gitmo' detainees to the U.S. and we are led to ask why treat terrorists with 'kid gloves.'
I would also ask if the prolonged stand-off can be placed on this administration's micro-management. If this is the case, look at what happens when the military is allowed to simply do their job.
Since January we, as a nation, have descended from 'Cowboy Diplomacy,' to, something I refer to as, 'Pollyanna Diplomacy,' diplomacy based on, nice words, and weapons reductions. This form of defense policy, or diplomacy, only causes our country to appear weaker while our enemies grow stronger.
Confucius once wrote that "a wise leader always prepares for war." Today, the world's only Super Power is ignoring the wisdom of the ancient Chinese Sage by giving overtures of unilateral weapons reductions, talks with aggressive regimes, and changing terms like 'War on Terror.' In the meantime, we appear helpless as North Korea launches dangerous missiles over Japan, we have U.S. citizens being held by Somali Pirates and the list continues. In each of these cases the U.S. influence shrinks while the enemies' influence grows.
Iran's growing influence.
The first sign that we may on the way to a weaker foreign standing started with Obama's Iraq War Policy. The left always hated Bush's War and during the campaign the president promised to end the war 'responsibly.' The problem is that even discussing withdrawal from
Iraq played right into Iran's hands. Most objective observers of the war saw that our large presence in Iraq, as a stab in the eye, to Iran's plans of being a regional super power. Due to the war, Iran's influence in Lebanon has been questioned and their greatest ally, Syria, has been embarrased by the clumsy killing of the pro-western Rafiq Harriri, forcing Syrian troops to leave the Baca Vally. The government of another pro-western leader, Farouk Sinioras, in Lebanon has survived constant wars with Iranian backed Hezbollah. While Iran has also directed Hezbollah and Hamas to constantly harangue Israel.
If we do withdraw from Iraq, as quickly as Obama has planned, we will see the 'Fall of Saigon,' all over again., with millions slaughtered and radical elements in the country gaining power. This time, however, we will have an aggressive neighbor, Iran, willing and able, to challenge Iraq's borders or even take the whole south. Iran will be the greatest, unchecked, threat to the region. They will harass Israel and support Shi'a uprisings in every country possible, such as the Shi'a minority in Bahrain. Iran's influence grows while ours shrinks.
Russian Influence.
Russia has received indications that the U.S. is considering dropping our plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe so that we can 'work' with Russia on a level of mutual respect. This is the same Russia who last year attacked Georgia, a stalwart U.S. ally. Russia refuses to condemn Iran's nuclear ambitions, and have even helped in their development. Russia blocks any attempt of greater sanctions on North Korea, even after North Korea's launching of a long range missile last week.
The rug is being pulled out from under our military as Russia flexes it's muscles and Uzbekistan evicts us from a key air base in their country that has been an integral part of our campaign in Afghanistan. This is a sign that Putin and Medvedev have no interest in helping us in the expanded military campaign in Afghanistan. This campaign was a chief goal of Obama's plan to fight Al Qaida.
Russia has a strangle hold on natural gas and other important imports to Western and Northern Europe. This has been a leverage used to manipulate those countries who may be too friendly to the west. Gas has been shut off to Georgia and Ukraine during the coldest winter months, when Moscow has disapproved with certain actions taken by these countries. Russia is rarely civil and generally only works with those countries where there is a mutual power gain possible. The U.S. is the only World Super Power. Working with Russia weakens our standing. We work with the Russians at the peril of our allies with growing westernized markets, such as Poland, Georgia, and Ukraine.
The Muslim World at large.
Last week the president went to Turkey, after several stops in Europe, and stated in front of the Turkish Parliament that the U.S. 'is not at war with Islam.' He praised Muslim culture and made reference to his connection to Muslims having lived in a majority Islamic country. He also stated that the war in Iraq had damaged our standing in the Islamic world. These may appear to be benign, warm and friendly statements but as author Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese survivor of terrorism, eluded to in a recent interview, these words come off as unmanly and as an expression of surrender.
How has the Islamic World reacted to Obama's overtures of understanding and respect? By Somali (Muslim) pirates attacking a U.S. ship and taking the ship's captain hostage. It was widely understood that Somali Pirates would leave U.S. ships alone, due to fear of reprisal. To make this piracy matter worse, we have a large U.S. warship nearby and yet, we have sent in hostage negotiators. Brigitte Gabriel again states, that one only sits at the negotiating table to discuss terms of surrender. So these pirate, terrorists, see that we have the ability to send them to the afterlife but instead send negotiators. To add insult to injury the negotiators botched a hostage exchange and now the Somali's have a hostage and U.S. negotiators gave back the terrorist hostage to the terrorists. Now the U.S. looks weak and stupid. Somali terrorist pirates no longer have fear of reprisal, they have no fear or respect for the U.S. at all. This whole ordeal could rank with the Iranian hostage crises of the Carter era, or the Black Hawk Down debacle in the nineties.
Obama won't even use the word 'terrorist.' The war on terror which once angered enemies abroad, and Pollyanna Doves at home, is now a thing of the past. Not only will the administration not show a raised hand to the enemy, they won't even use harsh words.
...been here before?
Carter once attempted the time honored "Diplomacy of Pollyanna." In a short amount of time, Iran went from a pro-western regime to a wacky fundamentalist regime that held our embassy full of hostages for over a year. Carter stood behind the Menachem Begin and Anwar al Sadat at the signing of the Egyptian Israeli peace treaty. Both of these Middle Eastern leaders died within a short amount of time, and the U.S. received spiking gas prices. The way of the dove is often bloodier and much more expensive.
In the founding of our country we dealt with Islamic Pirates. The Barbary pirates robbed our ships, killed our crews and made trade around North Africa miserable. The continental congress sent negotiators to pay the pirates off, but the piracy did not stop. In the end, the U.S. fought back by arming ships, creating a navy and eventually attacking Tangiers. There was no peaceful, or nice way to end the problem of the pirates then and there is no gentle way to end it now.
The U.S. is best suited we when stand up for ourselves, we don't apologize for who, or what we are, and we live by the common sense maxim; "a wise leader always prepares for war."
Mr. President.
On election night in November, you claimed that, while just under half the country didn't vote for you, you would be the President of all Americans. Many of us on the right were encouraged, but leery, of this inspiring promise. What has transpired since, has been disappointing at best.
The Stimulus Package was your first opportunity to show that you would represent all of America. In that brief period, between your Inauguration and before the passage of the bill, you told us that without the bill's passage, we could be heading for disaster. You chose to criticize the Republicans who did not support the stimulus, you accused them of listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of the 'people,' which must have been code for 'you.' Your Press Secretary has repeatedly used such unifying terms as 'the party of no, and 'the party of no ideas,' when referring to the Republicans, but let's not forget my favorite of the unifying phrases, 'old habits die hard.' In the end, the stimulus package was passed in a hurry, full of pet projects, and rushed through legislation, largely unread. If there are any jobs created in the Stimulus Package, they will all be Union jobs, in sectors of the economy that are not suffering. To quote a famous economist "if you rob Peter to pay pay Paul, you can generally count on the support of Paul." The problem is that you promised to represent Peter as well as Paul.
The alienation of the half of the country who did not vote for you continues. Your Energy Department has been repealing oil and natural gas leases all over the country. A majority of the country wants us to to utilize our natural resources, including nuclear energy, but in each spending package, or Executive Act, we are getting squeezed. The promise of a Green Energy Economy, by way of massive Federal subsidy, will mean higher taxes on energy prices, and fewer jobs. Once Cap and Trade is added to the energy mix we could end up with a malaise that will leave the country reeling with; fewer jobs, higher prices, massive inflation, punitive regulation, bureaucratic red-tape and higher and higher deficits. When will you represent the views of more Americans than the left-wing special interest groups, who benefit from your initiatives?
Policy aside many of your constituents feel that the U.S. is the greatest force for good on earth. We see no reason to apologize for who we are, or what we create, or for our prosperity. To have a President go to Europe and call our country 'conceited, dismissive and often derisive,' does not represent, the views of, many of your fellow citizens, neither does getting a rousing applause, when referring to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, and declaring 'Americans do not torture.' This statement implies that we did torture before you benevolent hand ended it. This may make you popular to the adoring fans of Europe, who didn't vote for or against you, but it does not reflect many of us at home, which is the U.S, in case you forgot.
We will remain the Greatest Country on earth, but the real question is, will we remain that way, because, or in spite of your administration. Remember that punitive taxes, and allegiance to a European elite power, is what we fought to liberate ourselves from, in the U.S. Revolution.
We call on you to do as you promised, represent us who did not vote for you, stop spending us into oblivion, while blaming the Bush administration for the deficit. Stop blaming the U.S. for the other countries' financial problems. Don't tax us into stagnation. Heeding these calls would represent all Americans.
Posts
