Category Archives: Politics

by Barry Kelly | July 25, 2012 · 11:36 pm

Eight Decades of Insights – 13

The following are my opinions based on years of government service and academic study. This piece is not about Republicans versus Democrats. I’ve voted both ways and miss the Democratic Party that has been taken over by the Progressives who are definitely not Democrats or believers in the American Dream.

This election is not about Obamacare, war in Afghanistan, fossil fuel vs green renewables, immigration/border control, nuclear weapons for Iran, the Arab Spring, radical islam, monetary policy or all the other burning issues that disguise the real struggle.
In November the contest is about power. Everything else is simply a distraction or tactic to further the Progressives only goal, which is to get power and keep it. Only the Progressive Socialists understand the only real prize is power. It is perfectly acceptable within this ideology to say anything and do anything as long as one is focussed on getting power. Truth doesn’t matter. Keeping your word is not important. They are only words that can be recycled for the faithful. The “end justifies the means” is the Progressive ideological mantra.

This is not a conspiracy of the Democratic Party. The traditional Democrats are not evil. They are Americans who believe they have won an election.They are focused on the Progressive dream of a perfect utopian America. Now the Democrats must join with their Progressive leaders to achieve the goal of transforming America. Heard that before. Believe it. It is real. Before transformation America was a nation whose political system was founded on the diversification of power. Checks and balances. Three equal branches of Government. The Progressive agenda cannot prevail with power diffused. Piece by piece it must be centralized. Control of the health industry, the financial structure, industry, especially manufacturing, housing, traditional power generating resources, commerce and, of course, the unions is the prize. Jobs and the economy are only important as a means in the struggle for power. A failing economy, burdened with debt and high unemployment presents Progressives with opportunity.

Does acceptance that the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party is following a campaign focussed on centralizing power make current events and issues understandable? I believe it does. Mr. Alinsky has provided the plan. Now his disciples have only to carry it out. (Read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals for more enlightenment.)

What traditional American political party would even consider undertaking the following issues and actions?
*Class warfare rhetoric about taxing the rich, taxpayers making more than $200K annually. Surely, they know the revenue gain would be marginal. But for the Progressives, the political appeal to the fifty per cent that pay no income taxes is a winning argument. The middle class is a force that must be destroyed. The middle class, in the Progressive scheme, is very different. We will all be in their middle class. It will be the only class. No one failing. No one succeeding. This is not the stuff of the American dream where hard work and sacrifice provide opportunity for the individual to advance. Try to get elected preaching the line that everyone gets the same income regardless of their success and work skills. It’s far too early for that political platform.
*Pushing an unpopular, poorly crafted health care bill through Congress was politically wise? Only for the goal of centralizing seven per cent of the economy was it worth the storm of protest. Thousands of new IRS officers will be policing the system. What better way to control people and their destiny. Is making the IRS even stronger and more pervasive an attractive political goal?
*Use of the Justice Department to challenge the power of the House of Representatives. Making the Congress look stupid is worth the few shouts of protests. The Justice Department will not investigated any White House leaks or anything else that reflects badly on the Administration. Forget border security and “Fast and Furious,” suing states, investigating voter ID laws in swing states is more likely. This is not the traditional Justice Department that protected our freedom. President Nixon misused the power of the executive branch and we know what happened to him.
*Deliberty dissing our traditional allies, the U.K. and Israel as well as India and Poland, all democracies. While catering to Russia, the Muslim world, Venezuela and China. Not a democracy among them. Is this traditional American foreign policy? Has it ever happened before?
*Supporting disruptive street demonstrations and the willful destruction of property by the “Occupy Wall Street” mob led by Van Jones, a former Obama Czar for Green industry and an avowed communist. Search your memory for the last time the Democratic or Republican Party publicly supported a similar action.
*Bringing back the very unpopular “Death Tax”. Why bring this up in an election year? Some believe that the Progressive wing of the Democratic party has always wanted to destroy wealthy family dynasties. They can weld too much power so they can be a check to Progressive attempts to gather power. And it appeals to the “want it now have nots”.
*Before any political group can usurp power, they must control the military. A weak military force with weak leadership is a much easier target. Taking money from Defense and using it on entitlement programs makes Progressive sense. It weakens the military and spreads more wealth to those who depend upon government and who vote for the hand that feeds them. Did anyone think sequestration would work? The Republican leadership that hasn’t yet figured out what is happening, fell for the sequestration bait. Now the nation has to cope with declining power in a dangerous world.
*What political party ever set out to destroy the American power industry? Or send billions of taxpayer dollars to make believe green solutions for energy independence? Progressives talk “all of the above,” but act differently. And routinely use the power of Executive Orders to marginalize Congress.

Does the above make sense within the American political sphere? Not for any traditional party. For the Progressives, it is the only platform they can use to transform America. Most of us will not recognize or like the end result.

Be careful Democrats! If the Progressives win, the next election could have very different rules and you won’t be part of it.

2 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, class warfare, foreign policy, political solutions, Politics, Progressives, Uncategorized

Tagged as China, Democrat, Israel, Justice Department, military, Occupy Wall Street, Republican, Russia, U.K..India

by Barry Kelly | July 13, 2012 · 1:12 pm

Eight Decades of Insights – 12

Every civilization is built on a foundation of words. Words are (or were) the measure of a person. As I was growing up in small mill town in Western Pennsylvania, I learned you judged people by how good their “word” was. Wealth, talent, strength, the car you drove, and the girls you dated were important, but nothing was as valuable as the reliability of your word. Your reputation in all fields depended upon the integrity of your word. Once that was gone, it was nearly impossible to get it back. I submit that it is the same with nations, political parties, politicians, and leaders.

I don’t believe that modern-day politicians value the integrity of the words they speak and print. This is dangerous; without truth and honesty, our freedom is at risk. The end does not justify the means. Administrations based on the principles espoused by Lenin, Goebbels, or Alinsky have not lasted. On the extreme right, we find dictatorship of the oligarchies; on the extreme left we find equally ugly dictatorships. Both use words or propaganda to further their goals. The truth does not matter to them. It is good to distort the truth as long as the lies promote the end. The end in political terms is the goal of creating a just and fair society where the rulers know what the people need and use whatever means are necessary to achieve and protect their utopia.

History has seen many examples of a few believing they – not the people – know best. How did that work for the Nazis, the various communist regimes, experiments in socialism and Islam, and for several other ancient empires? They did not leave much behind, except fading memories of ugly repression. None of them could stand the truth. They all used words to further their causes and beliefs. The theory that “the end justifies the means” reigned supreme. Freedom is the final casualty when words are only a means to an end. How can you believe anyone, especially a politician struggling to hold on to power, who doesn’t care or even think about the consistency of his word?

The word of the leaders of a great nation, like the United States, both in domestic areas and foreign affairs must carry the weight of truth and conviction. When leaders change positions, not because of a changed conviction, but merely to support a more expedient political policy, the power of their word is lost. Their conviction is suspect. Foreign powers study the words of our leaders. When they see no consistency or willingness to back words and convictions with action, they will disregard the words of our leaders. Our friends will no longer trust us. The possible examples are nearly unlimited but here are a few.

Remember our secretary of state saving she viewed Assad of Syria as a reformer and only months later was calling for him to abdicate? Remember the president changing words, without a believable change in conviction, over tax issues, war strategy, medical care, and budget issues?

The end justifying the means is the most probable explanation. What does their word mean? Can you trust it? Reading the words of Saul Alinsky, a radical revolutionary writer and former Community Organizer in Chicago, will help you understand. Both our president and secretary of state are familiar with Mr. Alinsksy’s writing. Maybe you should be also.

Eight Decades of Insights – 10

This November, we will have a chance to exercise our freedom of choice at the polling places. Important principles will be identified on the left and on the right and our positions on those principles will determine our vote. In a true republic, contesting adversaries usually must compromise on some of their principles. This is only possible when the voter recognizes that all principles are not equal. Some cannot be compromised. Others can. The hard part is deciding where you stand.

I have thought my position through. I’m basically a right/center conservative who will, at times, chose to vote a split ticket. There is no perfect candidate for any office. Sorry about that. When Barack Obama was elected, I was proud of my country for electing a black man as president. Not that I voted for him. He did not fit my requirements for a president. I served in the White House under President Reagan and it is not a position where learning on the job is a viable option. Without significant leadership and management experience, no one can succeed as president. Experience as a community organizer, state senator, a two-year member of the Senate, and four years campaigning from the White House just does not prepare you for the job , no matter how intelligent you may be. Enough about that.

Back to the hard part. Where do you stand? Where can you compromise? What is your ranking of governing principles? Below are 20 questions I believe are worth considering before November 2012. There is nothing scientific about these questions or the order in which they are presented. They don’t even reflect my own order of political principles. Below I have presented the number of yes votes as a means for you to classify where you fit in the political spectrum from the far right to the far left. No scientific process here. It is all subjective and you can do your own scoring.

1. DO YOU BELIEVE THE FREE MARKET WITH LIMITED GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IS PREFERABLE TO A GOVERNMENT MANAGED ECONOMY?

2. DO YOU BELIEVE OUR CURRENT DEBT IS A NATIONAL CRISES AND WE SHOULD TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO END BORROWING AND PAY DOWN THE DEBT?

3. DO YOU BELIEVE THE CURRENT CORPORATE TAX RATE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE RENEWAL OF MANUFACTURING IN THE UNITED STATES?

4. DO YOU BELIEVE EVERY PERSON WITH AN INCOME ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE LEVELS SHOULD PAY SOME FEDERAL INCOME TAX?

5. DO YOU BELIEVE A VOTER I.D. REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE UP TO THE STATES?

6. DO YOU BELIEVE FREEDOM REQUIRES ETERNAL VIGILANCE AND BIG GOVERNMENT PRESENTS A BIGGER THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM THAN A MORE LIMITED GOVERNMENT?

7. DO YOU BELIEVE OUR CURRENT INCOME TAX CODE NEEDS TO BE REVISED?

8. DO YOU BELIEVE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNIONS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONDUCT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR SALARY AND BENEFITS?

9. DO YOU BELIEVE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS NEED TO BE REVISED TO ENSURE SOLVENCY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS?

10. DO YOU BELIEVE COURTS SHOULD INTERPRET AND ADJUDICATE EXISTING LAW VERSUS MAKING LAW?

11. DO YOU BELIEVE TERM LIMITS FOR LEGISLATORS WOULD IMPROVE THEIR RESPONSIVENESS TO THEIR CONSTITUENCIES?

12. DO YOU BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING A STRONG MILITARY?

13. DO YOU BELIEVE WHILE ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW, THEY HAVE VASTLY DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ABILITY?

14. DO YOU BELIEVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS THE WRONG WAY TO ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT?

15. DO YOU BELIEVE THE RECENT LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION ON INDUSTRY SLOWS ECONOMIC GROWTH?

16. DO YOU BELIEVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AT ANY LEVEL, SHOULD NOT EXCLUSIVELY TEACH PARTISAN VIEWS, EITHER LEFT OR RIGHT?

17. DO YOU BELIEVE THE RIGHTS OF STATES TO GOVERN SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM FEDERAL INCURSIONS?

18. DO YOU BELIEVE OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED FOR ALL CITIZENS?

19. DO YOU BELIEVE WE NEED TO HAVE AN ENERGY POLICY TO INCREASE FOSSIL FUEL DEVELOPMENT NOW WHIIE CONDUCTING BASIC RESEARCH TO FIND OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY?

20. DO YOU BELIEVE THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT AND RESPONSIVE TO CONGRESSIONAL GUIDELINES?

If you have 16 to 20 yes answers, you are a strong conservative. I judge a score of 12 to 16 yes answers puts you in the right of center wing. If your yes answers are less than five I think you can call yourself far left. My guess is a score of 6 to 10 yes answers puts you in the political center. Remember, this process is subjective. If you don’t like the results change the range of numbers. The important thing is that you consider these principles and some I’ve missed before you vote. We must find a working center in the next administration. We have historically been a slightly right of center people. We can govern from there and let the political fringes have their say.

1 Comment

Filed under political solutions, Politics

Tagged as barrack obama, government, politics

by Barry Kelly | March 31, 2012 · 7:04 pm

Eight Decades of Insights – 9

Afghanistan. Yes, it is time to pack up and come home. The original mission was to drive out the Taliban and deny Afghanistan as a training/staging site for al Qaeda. Five hundred or so CIA , Special Forces troops, plus the fighters of the Northern Alliance assisted by the firepower of the US Air Force and Navy did exactly that years ago. War over. Mission accomplished. Leave some Special Forces and CIA personnel in country and focus on other strategic problems.

But no. Then the liberal politicians took over. Iraq was a mistake, they said. Afghanistan is the “good war.” Get the troops out of Iraq and surge our force in Afghanistan. Develop a nation-building strategy, for that is required by the new mission. Wait a minute, didn’t we try some of that in Vietnam? Our military forces, even though frustrated by archaic rules of engagement, never lost a firefight, much less a battle. In war, our uniformed men and women do very well. No one is better. But nation building is another thing. We don’t do that. No one trains in the skills, whatever they are, for nation building. If there wasn’t a nation there to start with, there will not be one when we quit trying. I know. I was there. Corrupt leaders ruling by military and police forces do not a nation make.

Alexander the Great, and his mixed force from conquered lands, once invaded and ruled Afghanistan but he did not make it a nation. And history does not tell us much about his success and tactics. Later, the British and Russians tried to invade and rule Afghanistan. Invading they found easy. Ruling was hard. They both left beaten and bloody. The Afghan tribes are not, never have been, and today are not ready to submit to a centralized government. Just ask the Pakistanis. How well have they have managed or extended their national authority to their tribal areas? Karzai is corrupt and with or without our military forces, he and his “centralized” government will not last.

Failure to succeed at nation building in Afghanistan cannot be blamed on U.S. military forces. They are the best. Just don’t expect them to create a nation out of tribes. Political authority that sees the world as they want or believe it to be rather than how it is should not expect anything but failure. Afghanistan is a near perfect example of “mission creep” and political expediency snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s time to leave. Do not spend anymore blood and treasure on mindless political objectives. Leave the course of Afghanistan to the tribes, and our intelligence people and Special Forces, none of whom are interested in nation building. Afghanistan is not “the good war.”

Eight Decades of Insights – 8

I’ve noticed my ability to pontificate has increased with age. Since, at the same time, I believe I have some things to say, I’ll ignore this dangerous combination. Pushing on through the twin perils of giving birth to boring text and unproven assertions, I decided to use my new skills to probe the next decade. No matter where I begin, the probe hits the barrier of political polarization just under the surface. The sharp divide along class lines and ideology that has arisen with Obama’s reign is not as dangerous to our way of life as the fissures leading to the Civil War or the War Between the States. Nomenclature is the responsibility of the reader.

It is nowhere close. Calls for class warfare and the redistribution of wealth will not lead to a clash of arms. The more reasonable and largest segment of our political spectrum is the Center. Who are tired of the ideological cries that ‘the sky is falling’ from the extreme left and right wings. President Obama is not an evil entity. He is merely an inept man clinging to a discarded ideology. With different life experiences, he might have made a fair to middling President. So far he has not done irreparable harm. Any pragmatic experienced leader/manager can get us back on track for his replacement will have a great force to assist him or her govern in 2012 or 2016.

The Center, consisting of moderates and pragmatists, can rally all Americans in the name of national survival. The financial crisis will focus our attention on the need to drastically cut spending and balance the national budget, leading to a much smaller national government. The Center knows the lessons of history. Keynesian economics, that believes government spending, even of borrowed money, can stimulate the national economy has never worked. Not for FDR and not for Obama. Americans have always been willing to make sacrifices in the name of national security and the well-being of the next generation. No fear, in the next four to eight years, the threat from irresponsible spending and borrowing will be clear to all. Well, maybe the ideologues on the far left will still debate using their own facts. But they will truly be voices in the wilderness.

Along with fiscal responsibility, an overhaul of the tax budget is necessary. A tax code that is understandable, progressive in nature, and drastically reduces the over 40% who pay no income taxes will alleviate the impact of the strident calls for class warfare and the anti-business rhetoric emanating from the Administration. Term limits on Congress are necessary to improve their responsiveness to the people they represent. Three terms for a Senator and five for House members seems both fair and pragmatic.

The next decade will bring a crisis in national defense. Probably very early in the decade. Again the citizens will rally behind the need for a strong military. The conflict with Islam militants will not go away until moderate followers of Islam put their own house in order. Their past record does not lead to much hope. Again the Center knows that peace comes through strength. Respect is a stronger force for influence in world politics than striving to be liked. The dangers of a nuclear Iran, a rogue Pakistan, an unmistakable growing militarism in China, a probable increasing radicalization of Islam, especially in the Middle East and a democracy killing leadership in Russia will motivate us to make the sacrifices necessary to defend our country and our friends. These threats will clearly expose The UN for what is has become, a forum for discussion of popular causes. At times nice to have, but not worth the disproportionate share of American dollars.

The next decade will see the United States become a major supplier of oil and natural gas and their derivative products. We are moving that way now. As soon as the fossil fuel hating bureaucracy is changed for a less ideological and more pragmatic regime our production of fuel will jump ahead. At the same time responsible investment in alternative sources of energy will be market driven with seed money from the national budget when necessary.

The free wheeling days of the Federal Reserve will come to an end. The printing of money and the unnatural fixing of interest rates will require more than the deliberations of a group of experts meeting in secrecy. Another experiment that will run its course in the next ten years is the national control of education. It has not worked. The result has been a dumbing down of the educational system and the creation of the self-serving Teachers Union that has made a sham out of collective bargaining and failed to teach the nation’s children. The Department of Education will be abolished and replaced by a very small Presidential Advisory Council. The primary role of educating our children will be delegated to the States.

Two more important changes will occur. A centrist government and those who elected it, will wonder if the government having more union members than the private sector is a good thing. The government union members have no skin in the game and really no one with whom to conduct collective bargaining. Certainly the government bureaucrats on the other side of the table have no skin in the game. In the private sector where real collective bargaining takes place as long as the government stays out of it are moving toward having a real stake in the company they work for. That’s a good thing. My last look into the future is in the area of medical care. Any government elected by the Center has to take on medical care of the people. There are pragmatic solutions. Using the forces of the market place to the extent possible is a starting point. Any system that allows patients to deal with their doctors and to have a say in the cost of their treatment will have an impact on pricing.

Obviously you cannot do justice to the next decade in a thousand words. But we all need to think about this coming election and concentrate on the real issues at stake. If not now, it will get harder and more dangerous later. It is time to begin.

Thank you to those who have read this.