Capitulation to a Paper Tiger -- how pathetic

The political realm is pathetic, truly pathetic. What's so frustrating is that a majority of Americans still give government credibility, at least they give the figurehead credibility. Yes, polls regarding Congress show that most Americans don't think highly of DC actors in general, but Obama has a 52% approval rating, so this tells me that the media/pop culture creation, called Barack Obama, is believable for many Americans. It's likely that most Presidents since the first dozen or so have been media/culture creations more than superior statesmen.

I was amazed that so many on the Right honored George Bush as a great President, and I was flabbergasted that anyone gave any credibility to Bill Clinton. George Bush was surrounded by experienced men and women who helped him through two terms. Clinton is a southern con artist who's good enough that he fooled a majority of Americans not once but about three times now. He's good in that sense.

I guess Americans are holding onto something that's left of our political tradition, and it's easier to make believe that an individual is an honorable, inspirational leader, or at least a political celebrity worth admiring, than to overlook all the flaws of government and congress people. I guess it's a good sign that Americans are acknowledging the failures of government and simply holding onto Presidents to ease the disappointment. Maybe Americans will stop relying of government to solve social and economic problems.

You can certainly forgive the American people when John Boehner, with his powerful government position, is intimidated and capitulates to the modern Paper Tiger Presidency. Yes, the President has power, but only because we give it to him. Obama is actually a very ordinary individual, and certainly he's not an extraordinary, intellectually superior Philosopher King. But to hear the media and Left praise him (or apologize for him), they still want to at least keep the make-believe going. Boehner hasn't capitulated yet, but there are enough weeny Republicans calling on him to capitulate so that it won't be long. First Boehner has to put on a show in front of the New Republicans to show them he's tough on spending. It's, indeed, a show.

This is a time in America's history that calls for brave individuals to come forward and articulate the failings of government and limits on government power that are necessary to bring the private sector back to a new era of achievement and prosperity. Achievement and prosperity are, however, denigrated by the political realm. Political players in DC, like Boehner, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid and Obama are such a lousy, small-minded lot they fall so far short of inspiration it's truly pathetic, truly.

The warfare State

Yes, America should strive for the best defense system in the world. Yes, if we are attacked, or if an attack plan is uncovered, we should react swiftly with an appropriate, forceful and clear response. Yes, we have a great and intelligent military. But, what we don't need is a nation frightened into an unquestioning acceptance of the military/industrial complex and continuous war.

The 20th century model of Super-Power World Police is out-dated, and it's not something America should embrace in the 21st century. Global changes among many nations who were dependents in the 20th century make it important for America to adjust to these changes. The world is changing and America has to change with it, and it would be good if the change is intelligent and rational.

Isolationism is out of the question in our interconnected world, but a doctrine of non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism and protectionism. America can embrace free trade, cultural exchange, technological cooperation and an ongoing analysis of division of labor which reveals our manufacturing strengths and weaknesses without trying to forcefully shape the world in our image. The US can create a strong and highly effective defense system at home without spreading our military across the globe. If a real and dangerous situation arises which threatens world peace, we can make decisions based on what's required to address the situations as they arise, but we have to place limits on our military involvement in foreign affairs.

Those who benefit from a powerful military will always finds need for military intervention -- we can't be led blindly by generals, contractors and hawkish politicians, because they'll always push for more rather than less military action. This is one role of a President which is vital to our health as a nation, so it's important who's put in command of our military, This should go without saying, but with the lack of discussion regarding foreign affairs among the Republican candidates for President, this might indicate we have a problem. Have Americans shifted military concerns to the Pentagon with no need for oversight? How many people know what we're doing in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc? How many people consider the real need for military bases in Europe and Asia? How many people know where their tax dollars are going in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do Americans care about our warfare State?

It's very dangerous to put all our trust in the military/industrial complex and turn a blind eye to it -- this is one area in which we can't afford apathy. When electing representatives and a President in 2012, it's never been more important to choose wisely with national defense concerns in mind. We can't afford to become sheep frightened by each report of terrorist plots, plans and posturing. It's vital that we have rational, clear-headed represenatives in DC who will oversee our giant miltary machine and use it wisely, and who will fund it appropriately. The 21st century demands a much more intelligent approach, because history shows us what unchained interventionism can cause-- and for those who don't know the history, perhaps some reading is in order.

Herman Cain -- A real person for President?

Cain doesn't come from a Bush-like family of politicians, and he doesn't have a resume of public service starting at the age of 18. Cain is a real person who became extraordinarily successful in the business world and now wants to be a citizen-Presdient. Is America ready for another citizen-President like we used to have periodically in the old days? Ron Paul is fading, but it's not Paul's fault -- Paul is a radical idea man in a world of images and center-safeness. If we could put more of Paul's ideas in Herman Cain's bag of ideas, I'd be happy.

Is Rick Perry for real

I'm hearing that people in Texas say Perry is a changed man from the political, Big Government opportunist I have believed him to be. I'm willing to admit I might have misread him. Perry should come out with his overall political views so that we can get a good idea of what kind of President he would be.

Will Perry bog us down further in foreign interventions? This, to me, is one of the biggest issues facing Republican candidates. Who will develope a doctrine fit for the 21st century -- one which keeps America out of foreign entanglements?

Does Perry believe in limited government, and not just limited to prohibition of Leftist statism, but also prohibition of Rightist statism? Is Perry prepared to anger many on the Right by stating that government has no business regulating marriage? Will Perry call for an end to all corporate welfare? Will Perry fight to reform taxes so that they are not burdensome or skewed toward those with the wherewithal to hire expensive tax attorneys?

Will Perry explain the reality of entitlements to the American people and challenge insurance companies to come up with comprehensive plans to replace the government safety net for middle class and wealthy Americans? Will Perry call for a transition from the welfare state to private assistance? Will Perry at least eliminate the DOE? Further, will Perry propose a transition from public to private education, calling on industry to committ to helping kids who whose families can't afford private fees?

Will Perry fight to remove all wealth killing regulations that block economic progress? Will Perry propose a separation of State and Economy?

Will Perry explain to the Religious Right that religion is personal and government is a secular matter established mainly to protect individual rights and freedoms, especially civil liberities? Will Perry make it clear that he won't use government as a moral enforcer to socially engineer the moralist's preferences for behavior if that behavior is not coercing anyone else to follow?

Will Perry follow through and challenge the Fed to open its books and call for a full investigation of Fed actions in the economy and dealings with foreign banks?

These are a few questions that would help clear up the question of whether Perry is a fraud or the real deal.

Go, Ron Paul, Go!

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269184/ron-paul-rising-robert-costa

I want Paul to get grass roots support and scare the hell out of the establishment. I want him to win. We don't need a weathervane like Romney, or a statist like Huntsman -- we need someone who understands that major change is required and isn't afraid to tell the truth -- we need somebody crazy like Paul. Crazy is exactly what we need -- have you seen the sane people running things?