It has been said that when a man or woman joins the military, they sign a blank check. That blank check is their pledge to pay any price, up to and including their life, in service to their country.
Memorial Day is a special day that is set aside to honor those that paid that blank check with his or her life.
Thousands of persons dating from the American Revolution in 1776 to the present have attempted to express the nation’s gratitude for the sacrifices made by these men and women. None have done it better or more eloquently than the following:
"It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
This quotation is from the “Gettysburg Address" which was delivered by Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the cemetery located on one of the fields of the Battle of Gettysburg. When Lincoln gave this speech America was only 87 years old and was engaged in a great civil war.
Lincoln did more than honor the dead! He made a plea that “we the living be highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.“
President Lincoln knew that no matter how many men died on the battlefield, the nation would have to be preserved by the people and their elected representatives.
And so it is today!
Last November, Republicans won a startling victory in which they gained control of the House, made major inroads to the Senate, and gained control of the overwhelming majority of the Statehouses.
It was clear that we the people were and are opposed to Obamacare and the vast majority of Obama’s agenda. It is very clear that the voters want for runaway spending to end.
A few days ago in an irrelevant New York district a Democrat defeated a weak Republican candidate for a seat in the House of Representatives. Already we see the Republican leadership has forgotten the November victories and are in a panic over this one vote. If John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders are afraid to stand up for the people, lets kick them aside and get on with saving this nation from its most destructive enemy the Democrat/Marxist party.
On this Memorial Day, We Americans need to make the pledge that we the living be highly resolved that those who died in the service to this country shall not have died in vain; and that we will do whatever is necessary to restore a government of the people, by the people, for the people as is clearly defined by the Constitution. -- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Friday, May 27, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Trump For President? Really?
By Austin
President Donald Trump.
Do those words, strung together in that order, seem strange?
After the release of last week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showing Trump tied for 2nd among the prospective Republican presidential nominees, a lot of people are undoubtedly trying to wrap their minds around the idea.
If it seems out of reach for you, consider this: it was only three and a half years ago that the words “Barack” and “Obama” were so foreign to the American lexicon that they drew red flags from your spellchecker (and if you haven’t enabled a Microsoft update on your computer lately, you may still be plagued with red flags).
So here we are today, into the third year of the Obama presidency. And when Trump says things like “America has become the laughing stock” of the world, and the world’s “punching bag,” and we’re all getting “ripped off” by our government – well, it’s difficult to argue otherwise. His words resonate deeply with a good many of us.
Of course there is a gulf of difference between being a public figure that successfully connects with people’s fear and anger, and being a statesman who successfully executes the duties of elective office. But one does not generally get to be the latter, without first accomplishing the former.
So before you dismiss Trump altogether – and before you get overly excited about the prospect of a Trump presidency – consider a few of these ideas.
First, consider the thoughts of “Harold” – a regular reader of my columns who frequently (yet thoughtfully) emails me to criticize what I write. Harold seems to assume that I speak for the Republican Party – which of course, I don’t – and he’s been visceral in his complaints to me about how the Republican Party has been, so far as he’s concerned, “ignoring” Trump.
Harold gave me permission to quote from a personal message he sent to me back in October of 2010 – so here it goes: “…Some people may write-off Trump as nothing more than a nutty by-product of reality TV. But Austin, at least he’s a productive nut. At least Trump has taken the opportunities that being an American has afforded him, and made something of himself and produced something of value with those opportunities. Our current President is a nut of the destructive kind who spouts the gospel of economic re-distribution and paves the way for his mindless followers to live off the largess's of the productive. I’ll take a productive nut, over a destructive nut, any day…”
I doubt that Trump would wear the label “productive nut” with any great sense of pride. But that aside, it’s difficult to deny the legitimacy of Harold’s premise.
In some ways, Donald Trump has perhaps come to represent opulence and excess. Yet beyond the “brash” and the “flash,” Trump also represents productivity, success, and wealth creation. And Americans are intuitively recognizing that those are three things our country desperately needs more of right now.
President Obama, on the other hand, has spent far too much of his presidency trying to make us all more dependent on government for everything, while also making sure that no individual or group is allowed to amass too much wealth for themselves. When you juxtapose the two, Obama clearly looks more and more like the “thing that is ailing us,” while Trump looks more and more like the “cure.”
This is not the first time that Americans have had that horrible sinking feeling about our federal government’s leadership, and have looked for a presidential candidate that was somewhat “unconventional.” When I was a kid, for example, there was quite an aggressive push to “draft” a certain other businessman for the presidency.
Amid the country’s chronic unemployment, double-digit inflation and international humiliations of the late 1970’s, Americans began to lose confidence in not only President Jimmy Carter, but the two major political parties generally (sound familiar?). This brought about an attempt to draft then-Chrysler Corporation CEO Lee Iacocca to run as a Republican challenger to Democrat Carter, the belief at that time being that America needed a “real executive” to run the country (Iacocca later admitted that he never gave serious consideration to the opportunity, although in the late 1980’s the Democratic Party tried again to draft him for a run against Republican presidential nominee George H.W. Bush).
In 1992, with a mild recession underway and conservative Americans woefully underwhelmed with incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush, the “Independent” candidacy of Ross Perot sprung up. Politically speaking Perot proved to be nothing more than a spoiler candidate that paved the way for President Bill Clinton. He did nonetheless provide quite a “wake up call” for the Republican Party.
So can Donald Trump become our next President? There’s a campaign waiting for him if he wants it. And if Americans are sufficiently fed-up with the status quo then, yes, he most certainly could be.
Email Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
President Donald Trump.
Do those words, strung together in that order, seem strange?
After the release of last week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showing Trump tied for 2nd among the prospective Republican presidential nominees, a lot of people are undoubtedly trying to wrap their minds around the idea.
If it seems out of reach for you, consider this: it was only three and a half years ago that the words “Barack” and “Obama” were so foreign to the American lexicon that they drew red flags from your spellchecker (and if you haven’t enabled a Microsoft update on your computer lately, you may still be plagued with red flags).
So here we are today, into the third year of the Obama presidency. And when Trump says things like “America has become the laughing stock” of the world, and the world’s “punching bag,” and we’re all getting “ripped off” by our government – well, it’s difficult to argue otherwise. His words resonate deeply with a good many of us.
Of course there is a gulf of difference between being a public figure that successfully connects with people’s fear and anger, and being a statesman who successfully executes the duties of elective office. But one does not generally get to be the latter, without first accomplishing the former.
So before you dismiss Trump altogether – and before you get overly excited about the prospect of a Trump presidency – consider a few of these ideas.
First, consider the thoughts of “Harold” – a regular reader of my columns who frequently (yet thoughtfully) emails me to criticize what I write. Harold seems to assume that I speak for the Republican Party – which of course, I don’t – and he’s been visceral in his complaints to me about how the Republican Party has been, so far as he’s concerned, “ignoring” Trump.
Harold gave me permission to quote from a personal message he sent to me back in October of 2010 – so here it goes: “…Some people may write-off Trump as nothing more than a nutty by-product of reality TV. But Austin, at least he’s a productive nut. At least Trump has taken the opportunities that being an American has afforded him, and made something of himself and produced something of value with those opportunities. Our current President is a nut of the destructive kind who spouts the gospel of economic re-distribution and paves the way for his mindless followers to live off the largess's of the productive. I’ll take a productive nut, over a destructive nut, any day…”
I doubt that Trump would wear the label “productive nut” with any great sense of pride. But that aside, it’s difficult to deny the legitimacy of Harold’s premise.
In some ways, Donald Trump has perhaps come to represent opulence and excess. Yet beyond the “brash” and the “flash,” Trump also represents productivity, success, and wealth creation. And Americans are intuitively recognizing that those are three things our country desperately needs more of right now.
President Obama, on the other hand, has spent far too much of his presidency trying to make us all more dependent on government for everything, while also making sure that no individual or group is allowed to amass too much wealth for themselves. When you juxtapose the two, Obama clearly looks more and more like the “thing that is ailing us,” while Trump looks more and more like the “cure.”
This is not the first time that Americans have had that horrible sinking feeling about our federal government’s leadership, and have looked for a presidential candidate that was somewhat “unconventional.” When I was a kid, for example, there was quite an aggressive push to “draft” a certain other businessman for the presidency.
Amid the country’s chronic unemployment, double-digit inflation and international humiliations of the late 1970’s, Americans began to lose confidence in not only President Jimmy Carter, but the two major political parties generally (sound familiar?). This brought about an attempt to draft then-Chrysler Corporation CEO Lee Iacocca to run as a Republican challenger to Democrat Carter, the belief at that time being that America needed a “real executive” to run the country (Iacocca later admitted that he never gave serious consideration to the opportunity, although in the late 1980’s the Democratic Party tried again to draft him for a run against Republican presidential nominee George H.W. Bush).
In 1992, with a mild recession underway and conservative Americans woefully underwhelmed with incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush, the “Independent” candidacy of Ross Perot sprung up. Politically speaking Perot proved to be nothing more than a spoiler candidate that paved the way for President Bill Clinton. He did nonetheless provide quite a “wake up call” for the Republican Party.
So can Donald Trump become our next President? There’s a campaign waiting for him if he wants it. And if Americans are sufficiently fed-up with the status quo then, yes, he most certainly could be.
Email Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Boehner Must Champion Congressional Pay Cuts
By Austin Hill
You can’t say they’ve been slow to act.
Since the 112th Congress first convened on January 3rd of this year, the U.S. House of Representatives has been aggressively pursuing an agenda of cutting government spending. With the passage of bills that repeal Obamacare, de-fund NPR, and discontinue federal subsidies for special interest group Planned Parenthood (just to name a few), the House has demonstrated that it “got the message” in last year’s election.
And now it’s time for Speaker of the House John Boehner, the man who has led this frenetic charge, to take direct aim at the most obvious form of political self interest. It is time for Speaker Boehner to move forward on cutting the salaries of elected members of Congress.
Boehner’s leadership in the U.S. House has been front-and-center in a much larger story that has emerged nationwide. Led by state Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Snyder of Michigan, and C.L. Butch Otter of Idaho, elected Republicans around the country have been getting back to doing what Republicans should have been doing for the entire last decade – cutting government spending, and reducing government intrusion in private sector business matters. As such, the Republican Party has initiated a very healthy and necessary debate about the proper role of government in society, and has also provided an attractive and distinct alternative to President Obama’s “the state above all else” vision.
And now, as he goes about the people’s business day-to-day in the national spotlight, Speaker Boehner can add a new level of depth and richness to this national debate, and demonstrate that real statesmanship is capable of real self-restraint and real self-sacrifice. If he would champion the idea of congressional pay cuts and make it a legislative priority, he would likely find that the idea has broad bipartisan support among the American electorate, would create lots of “good will” on behalf of the Republican Party, and – most importantly – would move the federal government further in the correct fiscal direction.
To be clear, there has been chatter on Capitol Hill about congressional pay cuts for quite some time. Last year for example, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Arizona) proposed the idea, but with her own party in charge in Washington the idea went nowhere. However, Kirkpatrick also pushed the Obamacare agenda on a less-than-agreeable Arizona electorate, while at the same time she pledged to forego the lavish healthcare plan afforded to her as a member of congress and agreed to instead participate in the President’s government-run health plan herself. While cuts in congressional salary and benefits were certainly noble ideas, Ms. Kirkpatrick nonetheless managed to get herself un-elected last November as she became one of the infamous one-termer Democratic freshmen who rode the Obama wave to victory in 2008, only to crash with him two years later.
But at the start of this year another Arizonan -and a much more moderate Democrat - Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords took up the mantle. Introducing the “congressional pay cut act” on January 6th, Ms. Giffords attracted co-sponsorship of her legislation from such diverse House members as the big-spending Rep. Jim Costa (D-California), and the always-looking-for-leaner-government Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The Giffords bill calls for a meager 5% decrease in congressional pay, yet seems to be stalled for the time being as Ms. Giffords herself continues her miraculous recovery from her own horrific shooting that occurred two days later.
And herein lies the opportunity for Mr. Boehner. If the Speaker of the House would take the baton and move forward while at the same time making cuts in both congressional pay and benefits even steeper, he could demonstrate that American statesmanship is capable of self-sacrifice, and truly operating in the interests of the “common good.”
And imagine the impact that Speaker Boehner could have on Republican leaders at the state level. If, for example, Governors across the country were inspired to self-impose their own salary and benefits reduction, it could go a long way to demonstrate that teachers and law enforcement officers are not the only government employees that are being asked to “do more with less.”
Owing to the reality that the U.S. Senate is still controlled by the Obama Democrats, many of Boehner’s legislative achievements have been dismissed as “merely symbolic” (the Senate, for example, will never agree to de-funding National Public Radio). To this, the House Majority has rightly offered a very succinct response: “give us more Republicans in the Senate, and we’ll make our spending cuts a reality.”
But Speaker Boehner has the power, right now, to demonstrate that recipients of some of the most lavish salaries and benefits in the world (all of which are funded with our tax dollars) are capable of self-sacrifice. Mr. Boehner, this is your time -are you ready?
Email Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
You can’t say they’ve been slow to act.
Since the 112th Congress first convened on January 3rd of this year, the U.S. House of Representatives has been aggressively pursuing an agenda of cutting government spending. With the passage of bills that repeal Obamacare, de-fund NPR, and discontinue federal subsidies for special interest group Planned Parenthood (just to name a few), the House has demonstrated that it “got the message” in last year’s election.
And now it’s time for Speaker of the House John Boehner, the man who has led this frenetic charge, to take direct aim at the most obvious form of political self interest. It is time for Speaker Boehner to move forward on cutting the salaries of elected members of Congress.
Boehner’s leadership in the U.S. House has been front-and-center in a much larger story that has emerged nationwide. Led by state Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Snyder of Michigan, and C.L. Butch Otter of Idaho, elected Republicans around the country have been getting back to doing what Republicans should have been doing for the entire last decade – cutting government spending, and reducing government intrusion in private sector business matters. As such, the Republican Party has initiated a very healthy and necessary debate about the proper role of government in society, and has also provided an attractive and distinct alternative to President Obama’s “the state above all else” vision.
And now, as he goes about the people’s business day-to-day in the national spotlight, Speaker Boehner can add a new level of depth and richness to this national debate, and demonstrate that real statesmanship is capable of real self-restraint and real self-sacrifice. If he would champion the idea of congressional pay cuts and make it a legislative priority, he would likely find that the idea has broad bipartisan support among the American electorate, would create lots of “good will” on behalf of the Republican Party, and – most importantly – would move the federal government further in the correct fiscal direction.
To be clear, there has been chatter on Capitol Hill about congressional pay cuts for quite some time. Last year for example, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Arizona) proposed the idea, but with her own party in charge in Washington the idea went nowhere. However, Kirkpatrick also pushed the Obamacare agenda on a less-than-agreeable Arizona electorate, while at the same time she pledged to forego the lavish healthcare plan afforded to her as a member of congress and agreed to instead participate in the President’s government-run health plan herself. While cuts in congressional salary and benefits were certainly noble ideas, Ms. Kirkpatrick nonetheless managed to get herself un-elected last November as she became one of the infamous one-termer Democratic freshmen who rode the Obama wave to victory in 2008, only to crash with him two years later.
But at the start of this year another Arizonan -and a much more moderate Democrat - Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords took up the mantle. Introducing the “congressional pay cut act” on January 6th, Ms. Giffords attracted co-sponsorship of her legislation from such diverse House members as the big-spending Rep. Jim Costa (D-California), and the always-looking-for-leaner-government Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The Giffords bill calls for a meager 5% decrease in congressional pay, yet seems to be stalled for the time being as Ms. Giffords herself continues her miraculous recovery from her own horrific shooting that occurred two days later.
And herein lies the opportunity for Mr. Boehner. If the Speaker of the House would take the baton and move forward while at the same time making cuts in both congressional pay and benefits even steeper, he could demonstrate that American statesmanship is capable of self-sacrifice, and truly operating in the interests of the “common good.”
And imagine the impact that Speaker Boehner could have on Republican leaders at the state level. If, for example, Governors across the country were inspired to self-impose their own salary and benefits reduction, it could go a long way to demonstrate that teachers and law enforcement officers are not the only government employees that are being asked to “do more with less.”
Owing to the reality that the U.S. Senate is still controlled by the Obama Democrats, many of Boehner’s legislative achievements have been dismissed as “merely symbolic” (the Senate, for example, will never agree to de-funding National Public Radio). To this, the House Majority has rightly offered a very succinct response: “give us more Republicans in the Senate, and we’ll make our spending cuts a reality.”
But Speaker Boehner has the power, right now, to demonstrate that recipients of some of the most lavish salaries and benefits in the world (all of which are funded with our tax dollars) are capable of self-sacrifice. Mr. Boehner, this is your time -are you ready?
Email Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
