Skip to content


A Republican To-Do List

When the new Congress is seated in January 2011, Republican leaders will have a lot on their plates.  Overall, their goal must be to restore public confidence in the U.S. economy… not only among consumers, but more importantly among businesses, large and small.     

Consumers have lost confidence that they will be able to hang onto their jobs, so they don’t spend their money; they stash it away for a rainy day.  Many businesses are sitting on their cash, as well.  With Obama in the White House and the Congress run by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, they’re not hiring new workers and they’re not expanding because they lack confidence in the future outlook for taxes, healthcare costs, and government regulation.

To reverse that trend, Republican leader John Boehner has discussed his top five priorities.  First and foremost, congressional Republicans must vote to extend the Bush tax cuts.  To make up for the reduction in revenue and to avoid a major increase in debt, they must cut government spending by a like amount.  Conservative economists have suggested a long list of potential cuts. 

For example, taxpayers have recently been made aware that, on average, government employee salaries have grown to roughly twice the salary levels in the private sector and they are not happy about it.  The Republican Congress should hold public hearings to determine how it happened and exactly who is to blame, and then to begin rolling back federal salaries and benefits.  The era of exposing government outrages without attaching names and faces to them must be at an end. 

Second, they must announce their intention to repeal Obamacare.  Obama can be expected to veto a repeal bill, so Republicans must be prepared to defund any program that would support Obama’s healthcare scheme.  They’ve got to be ready to play hardball with Obama and the Democrat minority.

Third, they must announce their intention to freeze government spending at current levels.  A major part of that effort must be a firm commitment to end earmarking.

Fourth, they should announce a one-year moratorium on new government regulations.  As part of that effort, they might wish to hold public hearings on the question of who it was that made the decision to ignore a court order to end the moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  Was it the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, or was it Obama himself?

And finally, they must announce an end to multi-billion dollar bailouts and stimulus packages.  Every business entity, in every sector of the economy that has not been heretofore bailed out, must be put on notice that if they don’t know how to swim they’d better learn very quickly. 

But we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves.  Republicans have not as yet taken the necessary steps to gain public confidence in their own ability to govern.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have led their party down the path to what promises to be the biggest partisan calamity of all time… an electoral disaster that could see a Republican gain of as many as 60-75 seats in the House and a gain of 10 or 11 seats in the Senate is not outside the realm of possibility.    

To do that, it will not be sufficient for Republicans to simply promise to reduce spending, cut taxes, reduce the size and scope of government, roll back excessive business regulation, and provide a degree of economic certainty for business, large and small.  In other words, it won’t be sufficient to simply insist that they will be “better” and “more sensible,” than the Pelosi-Reid Congress.  What the American people need to hear from Republicans is that the 112th Congress, and future Republican congresses, will be totally unlike Republican congresses of recent times… e.g. the Hastert/Delay congresses of 1999 through 2007.

The American people are a forgiving people, but they don’t like to be played for fools.  What they need to hear from Republicans is a bit of penance for the Bush-Hastert-Delay era.  All they need do is to open up and say that the GOP was governed during the first 8 years of the century by people who either didn’t know what Republican principles were (Bush), who didn’t care what Republican principles were (Bush, Hastert, Delay), or who once knew what those principles were but had forgotten (Hastert, Delay).  Once they’ve made their peace with the American electorate they may then be permitted to govern.

What I am suggesting is that it is well past time to toss former Speaker Dennis Hastert and former House Minority Leader Tom Delay under the bus.  What these men did, with the acquiescence of George W. Bush, was to make it all but impossible for Republican activists to defend their own party.  Republicans have governed badly in the recent past and its time we admitted our error and started naming names.

In the Senate, Republicans will have to do far better than sending Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to represent them on the Sunday morning news shows.  In a Sunday morning appearance on August 22, in response to a question about how a Republican-controlled Congress would differ from the Democratic Congress, McConnell replied, “Well, we’ll have to wait and see what the president’s commission on fiscal reform recommends.”

Good grief!  Do Senate Republicans actually allow him to run around loose?  If McConnell doesn’t have a catchy response to that question he shouldn’t be serving as minority leader.  Tom Daschle and Harry Reid may have had only a passing acquaintance with the truth, but at least they had something interesting to say each time they found themselves on camera.      

Republican leaders must also be prepared to go to war against electoral fraud, violence, and intimidation.  To date, we have heard no announcement from Michael Steele and the Republican National Committee that they will pursue a no-nonsense approach to the sort of electoral hanky-panky that has characterized Democratic politics since the 1930s. 

If Michael Steele doesn’t have the foresight to announce that the RNC will have a force of volunteer lawyers at the ready, prepared to prosecute voting rights violations in every state and every county in the nation, then he needs to step aside and let someone else lead the party. 

And finally, as blacks see the Democratic Party decimated because of the failed leadership of Barack Obama, Republican leaders must make it clear that Obama’s policies are not being rejected because of the color of his skin, but because he is an incompetent who’s skin just happens to be black.

In a year when no fewer than thirty-two very capable black conservatives ran in Republican House and Senate primaries across the nation, with ten winning their primaries, we can expect the Congressional Black Caucus to be a very different institution beginning January 1, 2011… far different from the Black Caucus of 1994 when Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts was not welcomed into the fold with open arms.    

If Republican congressional leaders understand anything at all about the dynamics of the black vote they will insure that the largest black Republican freshman class in more than a century will be widely showcased and highly visible.  Not because of a sudden mass shift in black political loyalties… although that may be the case in 2012 and beyond in the wake of a challenge from Hillary Clinton and/or Howard Dean… but because Obama has lost his connection with the people on issue after issue – government spending, government debt, terrorism, immigration reform, the Middle East, the environment, the BP oil spill, the ground zero mosque, and many more. 

For whatever reason, Obama appears intent upon making sure that he is not only the first black president, but the last one for many generations to come.  No one, black or white, has ever damaged the hopes and aspirations of black people to the extent that Barack Obama has. 

Let us all hope and pray that the Republican leaders in Congress will find the political skills and the political courage necessary to lead us through this very difficult time.

Posted in Paul's Prescience.


The Eligibility Question

Dear readers, the day has come to discuss a rather hairy issue. For some time, I’ve been pondering the major questions surrounding our current President’s eligibility to hold the office. It’s a touchy subject, I know, but let me warn you in advance: I’m not going to be drawn into any discussions of racism, so don’t even go there. As with everything else we’ve seen so far, let’s look at the topic objectively and from the point of view of Constitutional law, which regardless of anyone’s personal feelings, has the final say.

So, before we can begin to discuss the question of eligibility, we need to actually establish just what Constitutional law says about a citizen’s qualifications to be President of the United States, so we’re all on the same page. There are three requirements:

  • First, the person must be a natural citizen of the United States. (More on this in a minute.)
  • Second, the person must be at least 35 years old.
  • Finally, the person must reside in the United States for a minimum of 14 consecutive years at the time of his election.

We all know that President Obama meets requirements 2 and 3, so let me expand on the first requirement for just a minute. What makes a person a natural citizen? Well, he could be born in the United States, regardless of who his parents are. That automatically makes him a natural citizen. Also, he could be born abroad to two citizens of the United States. That also makes him a natural citizen, as in the case of Mr. Obama’s opponent in the 2008 elections, John McCain, who was born in Panama to two American parents. Finally, if only one of the parents is an American citizen and the child is born abroad, then that parent must have had citizenship for at least 5 years after the age of 14. In other words, if the parent was a citizen at age 14, then the parent must be at least 19 for the child to be born a natural citizen. Pretty convoluted, huh? Anyway, those are the rules.

Oh, one more thing. If a natural citizen at any point in time renounces his citizenship, he automatically loses his eligibility to be president, even if he later regains his citizenship through re-naturalization. This makes him a naturalized citizen, just like any foreign immigrant who comes into the country and gets citizenship. Got it? Good.

Now I’m not even going to touch the birth question. If you want to read a really good analysis of the birth dilemma, go here. The author, Mr. Paul Hollrah, is a recent member of the Electoral College and much more qualified than me to address that part of it (best and brightest, remember?)

Incidentally, a loyal reader and cherished friend asked me a while back, after I wrote that very first post about the Electoral College, whether the College hadn’t in fact verified President Obama’s eligibility before voting him into office. That was part of their job, yes. In fact, a candidate is supposed to be vetted on three different occasions: first, by their party at the time of their nomination, then by the Electoral College during the election process, and finally by the Supreme Court before the inauguration. That’s how important it is to our nation that our President be properly qualified! BUT, in terms of the Electoral College, it’s not like they get together and discuss the eligibility of each candidate over coffee or drinks. It’s a secret ballot. Each member of the College has the individual responsibility of deciding for himself whether the candidates are qualified, and they vote based on their personal findings. No member of the Electoral College knows for sure who any other member voted for, though they can probably take a good guess based on their party!

Anyway, for purposes of today’s discussion, I’m going to simply assume that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. Why? Because he said so, and I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I’m going to take everything he’s said at face value and assume he’s telling the truth: that he was, in fact, born a natural citizen.

I’m also going to assume he’s telling the truth when he states in his autobiography that he traveled to Indonesia (to visit his mother, who had renounced her American citizenship) and Pakistan in 1981. And THAT’s what causes a major problem in my mind. You see, no American citizen could have traveled legally to either of those countries on an American passport in 1981. They were considered nations that harbored terrorists and therefore enemies of the United States. So…how did he get there?

I’ve heard some say that Mr. Obama was born with dual citizenship, American and British, because his father was Kenyan and a British subject, and that he could have traveled on a British passport. While it is true that he could have been born with dual citizenship, by 1981 Kenyans were no longer British subjects and he would have had to exchange his British passport for a Kenyan passport, and there’s the catch: Kenya does not allow dual citizenship with the USA for adults. Mr. Obama would have had to choose between his U.S. citizenship and Kenyan citizenship! I’ve also heard the argument that since his mother had obtained Indonesian citizenship, maybe he had dual citizenship with Indonesia. The same rule applies: dual citizenship between the United States and Indonesia is not allowed. The only way Mr. Obama could have traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan legally would have been to renounce his American citizenship!

Which then makes you (or should make you) wonder…how did he get back into the United States? Well, he could have gotten re-naturalized, in which case he is an American citizen, but no longer a natural citizen, and is therefore not eligible for the Presidency. But…why isn’t there a record of that? Even worse scenarios, which I don’t even want to think about, are that we elected a resident alien, or WORSE, an illegal alien! (Maybe that’s why he’s in such a snit over Arizona’s immigration law?)

There is, of course, the best case scenario: that he never gave up his citizenship but simply traveled illegally on his American passport, in which case we simply have a criminal in the Oval Office. Seeing as how this particular crime doesn’t involve smoking marijuana (and not inhaling) but illegally traveling to countries that are Enemies of the State, while his eligibility would then not be in question, in my mind (and hopefully in yours) his loyalty to the United States would be. Still not a good scene.

Even in the best case scenario above, Mr. Obama slipped past his own party, the (mostly Democrat in 2008) Electoral College, and the Supreme Court. In their zeal to get him elected, all these people were willing to overlook real (and obvious) issues with Mr. Obama’s eligibility and/or questionable loyalty to the country he is supposed to protect,  for our nation’s highest and most powerful office. And they didn’t even need to look further than what he himself admitted to! Why??

I don’t know about you, but to me, Obamacare is the least of our worries…

Posted in Rosa's Reality Check.


Anniversary ..

It’s our anniversary.  We started counting hits on the site beginning September 1, 2009 … it looks like we have stirred up a reasonable amount of interest.

At this point it is probably a good idea that we recapitulate a little for those of you that have joined our blog since we started our tally. During the summer and fall of 2008, as the election approached, I, who have been a life long Republican, after listening to the gossip at the local coffee klatch, began reflecting upon just what was the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  My musings led to a short story, “Saving the Republic,” which is the first thing published on the blog and the basis for our quest … a search for the “genius of the American Republic.”  If you are interested in following the logic of our search, you should probably read the following essays in order.

  • Saving the Republic
  • Sockdolager
  • As Promised ..
  • Solving It … #1
  • #2
  • The Convention …
  • What is the Matter?
  • Another Convention? …

(You will find easy access to these essays by clicking on their names in the “tags” section of the main page.)

May I recommend to you my favorites in Maurice’s Library … “The Law” and “The Mainspring of Human Progress.”

The above are the basis for the blog, but explaining the nuances of the battle to save the “Freedom of Man” is incredibly complex, too complex for one person, so I have been blessed by my friends, the talented contributors to the quality of the blog;  Maurice, who is an economist, rancher, legislator, realtor, and most importantly, a lifelong devotee to the quest for human freedom; Paul, who is a venerated engineer, syndicated columnist, commentator, philosopher, political operator extra-ordinare, and Presidential Elector; Wayne, who is a humorist, columnist, Master Water Well Driller, sage and sometimes red-neck; the youngest of us, Rosa, a bi-lingual, full blooded American woman, an Ivy Leaguer, an honors engineering graduate of Cornell University, a MBA and a mom;  and your host, Lee, practitioner of many trades, master of few, closet red-neck and your humble host.

Please enjoy our continuing endeavors and please use our comments section of the blog, either to criticize (critically or constructively) or ask questions … as our country falls further into extremis we are going to need all the dialogue possible.

Sincerely … Lee

Posted in Timely Topics.