Category: Guest Authors

Primary System Unfair To Other States

Primary System Unfair To Other States

By Chris Freind

Pennsylvania and the nation have zero say —yet again

Another election year is upon us, and there’s good news and bad news. On the
upside, Americans will again peacefully choose their next leader in
November, a continuing miracle which we too often take for granted.

The
not-so-great part is that the 98 percent of citizens who don’t live in
Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina will — yet again — have
virtually no say in their Party’s nominee for President.

In other
words, the leader of the Free World will largely be determined by
Hawkeye State hicks whose claims to fame are making full-size butter
cows (sounds like a made-to-order Paula Deen special) and hysterically
crying whenever their other sacred cow is criticized: ethanol mandates.

Likewise,
an equal say is incomprehensibly bestowed upon folks in New Hampshire
— which is mindboggling since these people still don’t know there’s an
“r” in the alphabet. Guess it’s just pa’ fa’ tha’ coua’se. Pass the
lobsta’.

And now we have Uncle Cletus in the state that started
The War of Northern Aggression putting the finishing touches on the
coronation.

Only in America.

Where does that leave the
rest of the country? Voting for dogcatcher, coroner and several other
less flattering offices, such as U.S. Senate.

So why does the
nation put up with such an inequitable system, will it ever change, and
is there a better way? Lack of political courage, probably not, and
resoundingly yes.

Jokes aside, all three early-voting states are
wonderful in their own right, rich in history and filled with
salt-of-the-earth folks trying to make their lives and country better.

But having the first and last word
in the election process is insane. No state should hold that much
power, and possessing it manages to accomplish three things, all
negative:

-The rest of the country grows angrier every four years.

-That
resentfulness leads to significant voter apathy because of the
not-incorrect mentality that “my vote doesn’t count since the winner has
already been chosen.” As a result, other critical state and local
races, many of which affect people infinitely more than a national
contest, go unnoticed and voter turnout nosedives.

– The eventual nominee leaves a lot to be desired.

With
the exception of the Obama/Hillary Clinton race going the distance,
which in truth was over well before many late-in-the-game states voted,
nominees have been chosen by these states for decades. And the nation
suffers.

What does an oil driller in Alaska, a manufacturer in
Pennsylvania, or border patrol agent in Arizona have in common with an
Iowa farmer? How does a small business owner in Oklahoma relate to a New
Hampshire lobsterman’s fishery issues? And how much is a Montana
rancher in tune with a South Carolina textile worker?

The present
rigged system results in candidates who, instead of being more in touch
with Americans’ varied interests — and being forced to take positions
on those issues —are increasingly responsive only to voters in those
three states. Win them, and it’s over, and the rest of the nation be
damned.

The system is the way it is because the Establishments of
both Parties like it that way. To them, it is easy, clean and
(relatively) quick, and avoids what is anathema: a long, drawn out
primary election that ultimately would wrest control from Party leaders
and give it to —God forbid — the people. And the more quickly a
nominee can be picked, the less money has to be spent during primary
season, with more time to raise cash for November.

But since the
interests of the people are not high on Party leaders’ lists (they
prefer power for the sake of power), they will move Heaven and Earth to
retain the status quo.

It could be changed, but that would require political courage. And that is in short supply.

Frontrunners are almost always part
of the Establishment, so count them out. And long-shot challengers
either suck up to Party leaders trying to get into the Club, or end up
spending an entire year in one state pandering to a particular
constituency —such as Rick Santorum selling his soul by courting the
ethanol corn vote in Iowa.

Admittedly, it is an extremely
difficult system to break, but thus far the efforts to do so have been
misguided. Take Jon Huntsman, who skipped Iowa to focus on New
Hampshire. He was an extreme long shot anyway, so all the more reason to
spend some of his personal fortune to tell the nation — and the Party
hierarchy — why he was boycotting Iowa, and why the system was so
flawed. In doing so, he could have gained significant traction, not
enough to win, perhaps, but enough to call the system into question.
And in some respects, that would have been more important than winning
the nomination. But he didn’t.

And in 2008, Rudy Giuliani
skipped all three states to first compete in Florida. Had he actually
had a competent campaign and resonating message — including strongly
advocating why the system was unfair — the outcome might have been
different (especially since eventual nominee John McCain’s campaign was
in significant debt). But he didn’t.

So can it change? Tough to
say, but if the electorate has taught us anything recently, it’s that it
is volatile, angry and unpredictable.

To make it fair for all Americans, one of two options should be considered:

1)
Divide the nation regionally into three groupings of roughly 17 states,
and rotate each subset so that every four years, a different one starts
the voting. That would offer enough of a variation that local or even
regional issues would not dominate the campaigning.

2) Perhaps
better, the groupings of states should be picked randomly, so that the
diversity of Americans’ issues would be better reflected. With only
three primary election dates on the calendar, every state would have a
significant say in which Party nominee wins. The downside is that
nationwide campaigning for each of the primaries would drive campaign
costs up, thus increasing the need for more fundraising. But campaign
costs will go up anyway, and with so many more voters having a stake in
the election, small dollar donations via the internet may well offset
the increased costs of running a larger campaign.

Switching to a
new system is no guarantee that better candidates will be chosen. It
would, however, undoubtedly increase the slate of folks willing to throw
their hat into the ring — given that many now stay out because they
feel they can’t compete. It would also engage millions more Americans in
the presidential election process, finally giving them a say that has
been denied to them for far too long.

Given the state of America,
due in large part to electing pandering politicians with a scarcity of
courage and conviction, it’s time to try something new and return power
to the people, instead of relying on butter cows and lobsterman to
choose our leader.

We could do no worse.

Our Reason for Being


The Roar

Our Reason for Being

Our Constitution was written to eliminate all the squabbling and bickering which The Articles of Confederation induced.  In doing so, our Founding Fathers based their creation upon one written word, “unalienable,” which  Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence acknowledged.  In doing so, our Founders created our “unalienable” basis for American government which no other government in the history of man even contemplated.

To further support the term unalienable, which meant “that may not be transferred,” Jefferson prefaced it with its elevation ,”that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”  This one stipulation was and continues to be one giant step for mankind. No where and never before had a government recognized, much less based the freedom of its people upon a higher authority than the government being created or formed.

And it is to this distinction that we proudly call ourselves “American.”  People all around the world, when hearing that identity stand in awe since they realize, and in some cases realize more than the average American, what a special privilege the claim of American insures.

Returning to the Constitution, it was evident that government had to be refined since under the Articles, States were in a constant struggle for competition and were jealously guarding while greedily intruding where ever possible on the other.  Under that structure open warfare would eventually take place.

So those assembled in Philadelphia were assigned the task to finely tweak the Articles.  However, instead of minor adjustments, our Founders constructed a completely new system for governing.   This I might add is the danger from what modern revisionists assert with their renewed call for another Constitutional Convention.  They see, better than the average layman, the wide breathe of possibilities presented by the criteria of “past practice.”  Simply put, our Constitution would no longer exist.   But, that is another topic.

Along with uniting our struggling, jealous and ofter accusing States, this creation presented a united front to foreigners with designs.  It also provided a federal maintenance service through its stated  Constitutional duties.  Present and future States would be “united” and “protected” under the government.  I might add that the duty to “protect” has fallen by the wayside under the present administration.

What I am leading up to is just how far our current government has stretched its Constitutional authority.  When understanding that our Constitution demanded that ours was to be a “limited” government, we must re-evaluate our public leniency.  Today’s version is out of compliance to the extent that it now dares any attempt at reform.  Like it or not, our debt soars for the simple reason that government is into everything.

I am reminded about a Congressional event in which the spending of the people’s money was in question.  To paraphrase from The Life of Colonel David Crockett (1884), it seems that the House of Representatives pondered the question of whether to appropriate a monetary reward to a widow of a deceased military officer.  All present were in favor when Congressman Crockett arose to speak.  The end result was that all reversed their original positions and agreed with Crockett.

In essence, the future hero of the Alamo thought it appropriate to individually donate as a charity but Congress did not have the right to divert public funds, no matter how well intentioned the reason might be.  Also, it was not their money!  Crockett believed that government pays off debts for services rendered and that payment wasn’t due to the deceased at the time of his demise since he was serving, and thus paid, till the day of his demise.

I wonder what those former Congressmen from Crockett days would say not only about this unlimited spending, which now exceeds over fifteen trillion, but also to this obvious assault against the “law of the land.”  In recent years, the course of government has been direct and unending and our debt validates its lawlessness.  For us, it’s all about whether the future will be bleak or bright.  And the sad thing is that it’s a decision which never needed to be faced.

Jim Bowman, Author of
This Roar of Ours

Don’t Blame Sunoco, ConocoPhillips, Or Unions For Refinery Shutdowns

 

“Thank you for trying to get those who
should understand the urgency of energy independence, jobs, and our
future…to do so. (We are) loading up the SUV almost every day to give
away household items to Neighborhood Services and friends…and preparing
to relocate if necessary. You are right… finding middle class wages here
in Pennsylvania is challenging if not impossible. The blood, sweat and
tears of years planning and building our dream home only to sell it in a
bad housing market is like adding salt to the wound….”

This
heartbreaking message was sent by a distraught wife of a 19-year Sunoco
refinery worker, as that company’s two refineries (Philadelphia and
Marcus Hook) are slated for closing, as is the ConocoPhillips refinery
in Trainer, Delaware County, if no buyers are found. Making the sin
mortal, there are reports that the ConocoPhillips plant might be
dismantled, shipped overseas, and resurrected in a foreign- potentially
adversarial – country. But this is nothing new, as America’s abandonment
of its manufacturing base has often included shipping entire facilities
overseas for the benefit of our competitors.

Can it be reversed?
Is it possible not only to save these refinery jobs but at the same
time create a rebirth of American manufacturing – mandatory for the
nation’s future since no country has ever survived without an industrial
base? Many “experts” will arrogantly claim “no,” that America can’t
compete with Chinese labor costs, and smugly proclaim that manufacturing
is passé anyway – unnecessary in a modern 21st century economy.

Unfortunately,
the wrong people here are losing their jobs. The backbone of America
shouldn’t be facing the unemployment lines. The so-called experts,
including the politicians from both Parties who got us into this mess,
should be the ones getting canned. See Freindly Fire’s Sunoco Refinery Part One.

But
if we are to save jobs by retooling the refineries to process God’s
gift to Pennsylvania (and the nation) – Marcellus Shale natural gas – it
is imperative to stop the blame game and halt the tendency, while
natural in a time of such high emotion, to conveniently point fingers at
whatever “boogeyman of the day” caused this unfortunate situation.
Likewise, the fly-by-night ideas proposed by some shortsighted
politicians must be seen for what they are: either clueless suggestions
or a naked pandering for votes.

Who Didn’t Cause The Problem

Sunoco

A
million dollars is a lot of money – who hasn’t thought about having
that much cash? You could do a lot with a mil per year, even more if you
made that per week, and would be king of the world if you raked in
seven figures per day, especially if that that was the case for three
straight years. Life would be sweet – unless, of course, you happened to
be in the sweet crude oil refining business in a deteriorating market.

So
let’s be consistent. If making a million a day is desirable, losing
that amount on a daily basis would be, in professional financial
nomenclature, very, very bad. Common sense tells us that anyone losing a
million a day for three years would do everything possible to stop the
hemorrhaging. Welcome to Sunoco’s plight.

Ask any student unschooled in
economics what the primary objective of business is, and he will
invariably answer, “to make money.” Wrong. Making money is easy. Earning
a profit by taking in more than you spend – the correct answer – is the
hard part.

Despite the misguided “Occupy” mentality that profits
are nothing more than gluttonous greed, the truth is quite different.
They are necessary to expand operations, hire more personnel, pay
salaries and benefits, and contribute to the overall health of a company
– and the entire economy. (Not that Wall Street greed doesn’t exist in
numerous other forms, much of which should be regulated/outlawed, but
that is another column).

Sunoco and ConocoPhillips are not in the
“business” of losing money, and their past profits and payouts to
shareholders are completely irrelevant to the fact that the outlook for
the refining business is bleak. They are under no moral, ethical or
financial obligation to keep the doors open. Keeping people employed
inefficiently – READ: subsidized – in a business with no possibility of
profit is anathema to the Free Market and would eventually collapse the
entire entity. This is not speculation but economic certainty.

And
if you want to see what happens when this course is recklessly pursued,
pull up a chair because you’re in luck. You have a ringside seat
watching such an implosion in action: the unsustainable economic
policies of the United States Government.

It is also important to
note that in 2009, Sunoco announced a significant worker layoff in an
attempt to improve company competitiveness –  and all were white collar,
with no unionized personnel getting pink slips. Closing the refineries
is anything but anti-labor.

Unions

The
refinery shutdowns have nothing to do with “greedy unions sucking too
much money” from the companies’ bottom lines, as some critics of
organized labor incorrectly state. Many of those in refinery operations
are highly skilled union workers who have made a solid living over the
last several decades. But a look at the market conditions shows such a
minefield ahead for the companies that no amount of concessions would
come close to solving the problem. In the big picture, the significant
obstacles facing Sunoco and ConocoPhillips are infinitely greater than
any “high” labor costs associated with operating the refineries.

Just
like “evil empire” rich oil company executives make inviting targets
for blame, so do “pillaging” unions who “want more for doing less.” Is
either side perfect? Of course not, since there is no such thing. But
while both make good scapegoats, it is simply counterproductive to
continually throw darts at them. Insults don’t solve problems. Strategic
vision and genuine partnerships do. The only thing that matters is
solving the problem – and quickly.

Obama

Some
find it convenient to blame the President for everything from high gas
prices to their children getting a bad test grade. While he certainly
has his faults, he extended his hand to the Republicans on the single
most important issue of our time – moving America towards energy
independence. If some of his suggestions had been enacted (which, in
reality, are part of the Republican platform), they would have quite
possibly made the refining outlook much brighter for Sunoco and Conoco,
and the shutdowns may not have occurred.



And the GOP response? No bills were
introduced, and they absolutely refused to work with the President,
with many stating that “he didn’t really believe what he was saying.”
What a brilliant, mature response.

For the disbelievers who need
proof, just watch the President’s 2010 State of the Union speech, when,
in front of the entire nation, he urged Congress to expand our offshore
drilling ventures, and freed up millions of acres of coastal water for
exploration and development. In addition, he called for an increase in
nuclear power plants across America and pursued loan guarantees for new
facilities (even one year later in light of the Japanese disaster).

Which
was interesting, not only because he went against one of his strongest
constituencies (the environmental lobby), but also because Obama’s move
threw a wrench in the conspiracy that he was a closet Muslim who wanted
to weaken America. Pushing for energy independence would be the polar
opposite way to achieve that goal.

Granted, Obama has not been
stellar in following up on his domestic drilling initiatives after the
BP spill, and has yet to authorize the critical Keystone XL Pipeline
project, but those shortcomings pale in comparison to the other Party’s
inaction.

What did oilman George W. Bush or his Halliburton-affiliated sidekick Dick Cheney do to increase domestic production? Zero.

Or
the patriarch of the Bush family, George Herbert Walker Bush? Well, it
was the elder Bush who signed the moratorium on offshore drilling. His
son W. left it in place for seven years, despite having sizable
majorities in both Houses of Congress. Only after fuel costs skyrocketed
to over $4.50 per gallon in 2008 did he call for the lifting of the
moratorium. But it was too little, too late. And it never happened.

What
could have prevented those crippling spikes at the pump? Offshore
drilling – both off the continental shelves and in ANWR (the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge) – and the construction of new refineries,
given that the last one was built in 1976.

And what better time
to have pushed it through than right after the Sept. 11 attacks. In
addition to having a Republican congress and nearly 100 percent of the
nation behind him, Bush had the world’s goodwill in his corner.

Instead,
this nation’s reliance on foreign oil — which is a nice way of saying
we are pumping billions of petro dollars into the coffers of some who
are hell bent on destroying us — has only increased.

And this week, gas hit another all-time high for this time of year.



Both Parties are guilty of
forsaking America’s security and economic well-being. It is only right
that they atone by eliminating the red tape, bureaucracy and onerous
regulations placed upon the energy industry, as well as rescind the
economy-killing taxes on fuel. Those steps would make it infinitely more
palatable for entrepreneurs to convert the refineries, keeping those
strategic assets and jobs exactly where they belong: in America.

And The Beat Goes On

The Roar

And The Beat Goes On

Just by chance, thumbing through the follow-up postings of a Delco Times article about Santorum, I came across a comment about this recent incident involving some Marines.  It’s conclusion, written by a Vietnam veteran, echoed my thoughts completely.  Since I also served in Vietnam, it’s not too odd to view events with a similar eye.  At any rate, and I’m paraphrasing, the veteran wrote something to the effect that the Marines should be given a medal and be done with this story.  Amen.

As the writer said, it’s often those with cushy far away positions which do the most criticizing.  Some things never change.  Back in the day, the media alternated between two major on going subject lines; the war and the protests.

As a Vietnam veteran, I instinctively feel the heat of Iraq, experience the sand in everything and understand the bleak terrain of an Afghan landscape.  I too dozed off under a jeep, out of the intense sun and smelled the local offerings.  Veterans of all wars know and understand the unknowing, the loneliness, the uncertainty from danger.  However, we all acknowledge that military service best substantiates the old wisdom that “experience is the best teacher.”

With this very select genre in mind, today’s media captures national headlines, reporting that four Marines were taped urinating on the bodies of dead enemy combatants.  For me, echoes from long ago once again whistled with questions and condemnation.  I am sure that I am not the only Vietnam veteran who was whisked back in time .

To say that our homecoming was a bit tense would greatly understate those daily returns.  This is not meant to revisit those years but is solely an attempt to tame our judgement upon an event which is now being dramatized from an unknown stage.  Often a war’s single event frames its right or wrong identity.  In my day, My Lai became infused and validated the unwarranted charges leveled at retuning veterans.  And our media greatly promoted such response.

This most recent generation of American warriors, my brothers and sisters in arms, deserve more restraint from both the public, the press and most definitely from those who order our military without “any skin in the game.”  We should all take time to pause, to envision our actions in such circumstances before we jump on this media bandwagon of condemnation.  I might add that an over whelming percentage of Americans have refrained and rightly so.

Instead of being in the breach, my generation is also dependent, with reserved skepticism, upon the reports from various news outlets.  While Vietnam greatly expanded the media’s ability to report, today’s capabilities have miniaturized those forty year old telecasts.  However, today’s coverage emphasizes more and more upon the aspects of “collateral damages” than ever before.  It is almost as if war must be controlled and clean.

This official preoccupation with “good intentions” demonstrates our general unknowing as to what war really is.  I find it incredible and somewhat corruptive in that the “higher-ups,” those who still wear our nation’s uniform yet are assigned to that chasm between  military  and government, can go along to get along.  Most have tasted war’s raw realities but toe the line with muffled silence.  It’s clear that political correctness has been taken “a bridge too far.”

Many factors contribute to this cleansing of war’s dirty tools.  First and foremost, there is a lack of accountability since WWII.  Wars now rage until both sides tire or see an advantage in calling a tie.   However, what remains unchanged is the call to sacrifice from those doing the “humping.”  We recently witnessed that somehow, it was time for our troops to leave Iraq.  As such, I will not venture back to question the original reason for invading but this type of war’s conclusion, which has permeated our nation’s sacrifice for over sixty years,  is directly attributable to the original individual decision making at the outset.

What was witnessed and reported is not the act of barbarity but rather the reflections from another mission, the relief of surviving and the knowing that tomorrow only offers another  survival test.  Who among us experiences such an extreme “day at the office?”

In conclusion, I think the local headline, Marines name general to handle video probes, says it all.  Yes, this incident was unfortunate but for reasons not mentioned.  It is unfortunate by the fanfare in which it was reported.   And it was unfortunate that our elected and appointed leadership lack basic understanding of a war’s daily grind.

Should medals be awarded?  Obviously not but I can understand the premise.  Consider that our services have taken to mandating “sensitivity classes” for a number of issues.  Instead of the overkill from a court martial proceeding, it might be resolved that such lectures be held for identifying and understanding the correct places, positions and  general nomenclatures required for such impromptu “leaking.”  Maybe, some of our leaders in Washington should enroll.  God Bless our Troops!

Jim Bowman, Author of,
This Roar of Ours

Enormous Yet Unknown Influence

 Enormous Yet Unknown Influence

The Roar

An Enormous Yet Unknown Influence

Yesterday’s posting mentioned the unexplained attention which Huntsman received at the recent New Hampshire debate.  It was quite obvious to many since he flat out refused to enter the Iowa contest.  However, an agenda was followed which has been present in too many modern day elections.  And that agenda or better yet, connection, once again surfaced last Saturday night and as usual, went unnoticed by the general public.

Although three moderators conducted the affair, only two pertain to this particular set up which I am about to describe.  I’m assuming that the third was from the local news network and as such, gave a local flavor to the intimate college setting.

We all know the other two, Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos.  They more or less ran the show with the local moderator offering intermittent queries.  What actually stood out was the percentage of questions directed at Huntsman when comparing, with particular interest, the recent Iowa surge Santorum effected.  One would naturally assume that such attention would be towards Santorum rather than a no-show.  And that is where most of us become confused.  Why this reversal of attention?  Especially to a non player?  It’s the connection!

What I am referring to is the common thread which tied Huntsman to the hips of Sawyer and Stephanopoulos.  It’s called their common or mutual membership in the highly influential yet never outwardly bandied, The Council on Foreign Relations, or the more innocuous if not infamous, CFR.

Most Americans and in particular, voters, remain unaware of its presence, let alone its enormous influence.  Such influence is especially in play every four years when maintaining the order of the “establishment” becomes front and center.  Might I add that one other CFR representative, Newt Gingrich, rounds out the CFR’s lineup of presidential suitors.

As I remarked in my last posting, the Tea Party has brought to the surface those of the “establishment” who were previously unidentified, as was itself, this consortium of unknown influence.  In reality, this unveiling only scratched the surface as to the “behind the scenes” shennanigans which actually contributes to the refrain, “is this the best America has to offer?”

The Council on Foreign Relations has, for too long, greatly influenced if not controlled the outcomes of our Presidential elections, or for that matter, elections in general.  All without any public recognition.  Saturday night, their masquerade played out, again with an unknowing public viewership.  As previously stated, some questioned the Huntsman attention over Santorum but that rounded out the public’s curiosity.

Often nicknamed “the insiders,” by those who are aware of it’s presence, a joke was probably enjoyed after the debating performance concerning fellow CFRer Gingrich’s admonishing of what he termed the moderator’s one sided questioning.   This has now become a common and popular Gingrich anti-media ploy playing to the public’s general media angst.

For years I’ve watched the CFR’s manipulations but now am bolstered into somewhat detailing their mischief, given the fertile ground which the Tea Party has nurtured.  Their previously cited charade gives credence and may heighten the public’s curiosity as to the possibility that all is not known, all is not above board and that something inhibits our election process from electing our best.  Again, Saturday night was classic CFR drama in that Huntsman was propped up into contention.

A giant uncovering took place when we began to understand that indeed, there is a Republican “establishment” working to deter the successful nomination or election of any conservative and/or Constitutional candidate.  Well, this is only part of the fix.

Since WWII, members of the CFR have infiltrated into all levels of our federal government.  Research will reveal that this organization remains hush-hush as their design is the elimination of America’s independent sovereignty along with the introduction of a global governance.  Just recall all the unexplained events in our lifetimes that both defy logic and that also contribute to the c0ntinual degradation of our Country.  Better yet, count our Country’s successes.  That would be a shorter and an easier recall.

This s not the first CFR warning.  Entire books have been devoted to its anti-American dogma.  Barry Goldwater’s autobiography, With No Apologies, alluded to its dangers.  If I may quote the late Sen. Goldwater, on page 278, he writes, “I believe the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism.  They have no ideological anchors.  In their pursuit of a new world order they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, monarchy, oligarchy-it’s all the same to them.”

From one who was a CFR member for sixteen years, Rear Admiral Chester Ward, USN (Retd) was also quoted in Goldwater’s autobiography.  He writes, “these elitist groups have one objective in common-they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States.”

Up to this point, the hidden and unknown work of the CFR worker bees have been very successful since their work is best accomplished in secret.  Since members are interspersed throughout our federal government, media outlets and academia, they have been tremendously successful.  As with all their positions, they are super influential and often author the messages which Americans voice in their daily conversations.

Obviously, this subject is huge and a too detailed for one posting.  However, it’s important to get these shadows out in the open light of day. This organization is operational and its list of members are open to the public’s amazement.  Media illuminati such as, Brokaw, Rather, Krugman, Friedman, Stahl and of course Barbra Walters.  The military “stars” include Colin Powell, Haig, McCaffrey, McChrystal and his much publicized replacement, Petraeus.  Government members include, Ford, Nixon, Clinton, Kerry, McNamara, Dulles (both Allen and John Foster), Muskie, Rusk and Ms. Kirkpatrick.  I could go on and on but the members are as many as they are influential.

In closing, I felt this to be necessary in that our future is now.  There is little argument that America needs a reversal.  The stand is now and to be informed with truth is to be armed and ready for all the mind games that our “free press” has and will expand upon.  Hopefully, this posting will irk people’s curiosity.  We need to know now and remember always.

Jim Bowman, Author of
This Roar of Ours

Blame Lazy Catholicism for School Closings

Blame Lazy Catholicism for School Closings

By Chris Freind

The message from headquarters was sent to field agents worldwide:
“This is your mission, if you choose to accept it. Take one of the most
powerful institutions in the history of mankind and change it so
radically—in all the wrong ways—that in the span of 50 years, it will be
a shell of its former self, relegated to a backwater shaped only by the
sad ghosts of the past.”


Was this a Mission Impossible communiqué sent at the height
of the Cold War to implode the Soviet Union? Or a message pertaining to
another mammoth entity: the Roman Catholic Church? There is one
critical difference. The Soviets fell due to outside forces. The
Church, while admittedly having its fair share of outside “attackers,”
is falling from within, and most of its decline is entirely of its own
making.


The above message could well have come from St. Peter’s Basilica in
1965. The “field agents?” Cardinals, bishops and priests. The objective:
Implement Vatican II.


The result? Disaster.


In the tumultuous 1960s, the world was on fire as secularism and
moral relativism were in vogue. Rather than standing its ground and
fighting those undesirable concepts, the Church went in the opposite
direction. In effect, Vatican II allowed Catholics to be “Catholic” in
pretty much any way they wanted, playing right into the hands of the
Woodstock culture. That carte-blanche decree served as a launching point
for the now-dominant “do whatever you want to do and whatever makes you
feel good without remorse” mentality.


In an instant, the things that made Roman Catholicism the world’s
dominant force vanished. To many, the “rock” upon which St. Peter built
the Church no longer seemed solid, but more “flexible.”


Some Church officials, to be sure, disagreed with the new direction,
but they were powerless to stop it. Not only were they forced to follow
orders, but in a much more practical sense, they were no longer able to
hold their flock accountable when the Church abandoned many of the
tenets that made it so attractive in the first place.


When a political party strives to become a very large “tent,” trying
to be all things to all people rather than affirming its platform—what it stands for—it
eventually becomes impotent. It’s one thing for a position to evolve as
circumstances change, so long as the basic belief structure isn’t
irreparably compromised as to make the original tenets unrecognizable.
When that occurs—and both U.S. political parties are guilty of it—no one is pleased, and people abandon the organization.


Has a football team ever won a championship when the coach told his
players to practice in “whatever way made them feel good”? Has a team
ever been successful after making mandatory team meetings optional? And
how long will a team remain a cohesive unit if players simply ignore the
coach’s play-calling and do their own thing?


Morale and pride mean everything in building a successful team or
institution, but they can only exist when sacrifice and dedication is demanded of the individuals who make up that entity. The only part of JFK’s inaugural address that people remember was when he demanded greatness of Americans by asking “what you can do for your country.”


The Church lost those things when it stopped demanding greatness from
its rank and file, instead letting folks off the hook by making things
“easier.” Holy Day of Obligation falls on a Saturday or Monday? You
don’t have to go to church that day; we’ll just make Sunday mass count
for both. Want to wear cut-off shorts, sports jerseys and flip-flops to church?
No problem. Fasting from meat on Fridays get in the way of ordering
sausage on your pizza? The hell with it. Just do it. We’ll eliminate
that rule, too.


The list goes on and on, and the more the Church gave in, the more
people stopped going to mass, and yes, the more parents stopped sending
their children to Catholic schools. Since the Church took away the
essence of Catholic identity—the very point of being a proud Roman
Catholic—what was the point of doing either?


And now, several generations later, the carnage is everywhere.


Mosques are full, as are many evangelical churches, and the Catholic churches are empty.


And in those evangelical churches, a significant percentage of the
congregation is former Catholics who left the Church not because it was
too “hard,” but because it stopped demanding.


Vocations are nonexistent; elderly out-of-touch priests have no
replacements; schools are being shuttered at a staggering rate that goes
way beyond this latest round of closings; and scandal and corruption
are rampant with no end in sight; more billion-dollar settlements loom.


And worst of all, the cover-ups continue, serving for many as the
final nail in the coffin. Why go to church to listen to a long-winded
uninsprational sermon about “morality” when your Church leaders actively stonewall investigations and protect society’s absolute worst—child predators?


So what does the Church do?


Despite all that baggage, the Church has fast-tracked Pope John Paul II to sainthood—faster
than anyone else in history. This was a man who either was asleep at
the switch during the height of the sex-abuse sandal, or chose to look
the other way. He could have aggressively rooted out the perpetrators
with a take-no-prisoners attitude, sending an unmistakable message that
the Church won’t tolerate pedophiles filling its ranks, regardless of
the dearth of priests. But he didn’t.


And recently, the Church rolled out language changes in the liturgy
that are ridiculous and inexplicable. Was it just another example of
how out-of-touch the Church has become, or a deliberate distraction, as
some theorize?


Either way, it doesn’t matter.


Until the Church implements real reforms that will start the road to recovery, the numbers will continue to dwindle.


What are they?


• For starters, demand more of its followers. Don’t
cower behind the “if I demand that people dress better for Church, they
won’t come at all” mentality. Make them look presentable and act
appropriately when entering the House of God—or tell them they aren’t
welcome.


• Motivate the flock by relating to them, not talking in platitudes with rhetoric that puts the congregation to sleep.


• Make it tougher to be a Catholic. Be the religious
equivalent of the Marines. Sure, a kid taking the forbidden cookie
wants it, but deep down, he is really looking for discipline. And sure,
we complain when we have to sacrifice, but we feel good about it.


• Market the wonderful aspects of the Church (including the fact that it’s the largest provider of social services in the entire world).


• Stop being a paper tiger politically. What’s the
point of having so much muscle if you’re too scared to use it? A
different approach could have prevented school closings. (See my post
for more on this tomorrow.)


• Most important, eliminate the correct perception that the Church is close-minded and sexist.
Allow priests to marry. And yes, allow women to become priests. Not
only would these common-sense changes enable all priest to better relate
to their flocks, but they would also attract non-pedophile priests to
fill the ranks.


Neither change would violate Church dogma, since priests married for
at least four centuries and quite possibly much longer. The practice was
stopped not for religious reasons, but because of disputes over
property rights.


In 1911, there were 68,000 Catholic school students in the
Archdiocese of Philadelphia. That number peaked in the 1960s at 250,000.
Vatican II took hold, and the number plummeted— back to 68,000 in 2011,
despite a U.S. population explosion.


Now, 49 more schools just went on the chopping block.
The biggest irony is that the closings are not a solution, but the
symptom of a much greater illness. To save the remaining schools—and
that’s by no means a sure thing—the Church needs to solve the problem.
Check back tomorrow for my post addressing how to save Catholic
education in America.

 

Blame Lazy Catholicism for School Closings

Staying on Track

The Roar

Staying on Track

How is it that we start off our Republican primary season with contests that are essentially “open to the public?”  And how about Romney’s dominance?  Let’s not kid ourselves, this is another media product.  All of a sudden, Paul becomes a factor and that plastic face slicked down hair styled Huntsman now acts as a contender.  All with media applause.

Along the way, talking heads are announcing that the Tea Party is a wash, no more.  WOW!  What are we expected to do in January, ten months before the election?  Do not buy into their propaganda.  We are waiting and growing.  And the bottom line is that for the vast majority of those with the three pointed hats, whoever is nominated, the Tea Party will support.

Sure, we have our preferences but the one overall point of agreement is that Obama will be the loser come November.  And by the way, judging from his recent abuses, he senses this and is doing all the mischief he can.  So be it since he is only growing our Tea ranks.

Not only has the Tea Party, in 2010,  brought many into representation, we have also uncovered what previously went unknown.  There is as republican presence, often consisting of the most respected and relied upon individuals, which are now known with the RINO label after their names.  This is one fantastic accomplishment coming out of those mid-terms.  The playing field has been greatly altered by this outing of weasels.

Also, punditry weasels have been identified.  The former hallowed belief in that “fair and balanced” network also has undergone a public questioning.  Leading the RINO charge is the incessant double speak from Karl Rove.  I mean, does he really believe that the average voter hangs onto every bit of opinion emanating from this arrogant bore?  And Krauthammer is no better.

So with the final result of this recent contest in New Hampshire, with all the independent impact, is there any wonder as to the ascendency of Paul and Huntsman?  I noticed one amazing thing to come out of Iowa.  Huntsman didn’t even enter that contest but somehow garnered much of the questions in that initial New Hampshire debate.  Why was that?  Care to venture a guess?

Time and space do not allow for my take but this subject will come up in my next posting.  Suffice to say that similar to that RINO presence, while maybe suspected, it never-the-less continued unabated and deeply hidden until the Tea Party’s impact. So will other influences surface, and in this case, will be connected with Huntsman in particular.
Stay tuned.

Jim Bowman, Author of,
This Roar of Ours

A Needed Respite

The Roar

A Needed Respite

I must ask, what has and is happening to us as a free people?  I ask this, with regards to this current political assault season against the Presidential challenging party.  What has happened to our American decorum?

Questions flit through my “windmills” and often I am at a loss to answer.  Just where did this debating season originate?  I seem to remember debates of a chosen candidate from one party against the opposition’s chosen candidate.  But when did this endless prime time primary debating sessions begin?  I am at a loss.  Is it just a profitable moment for the networks?  Is the  damage inflicted upon one’s character and reputation the going price?  Or are Presidential contests nothing more than a Sunday/Monday night political contest of survival?  Is the quest for TV ratings now into our leadership selections?

As I watch what is happening to those who for some reason put their personal lives on hold in order to serve our Country, I recall when such devotion precluded all of this intricate inspection.  Not only precluded but such individuals were treated with respect.

Questions remain from the recent accusations which have already reshaped our primary leadership ledger.  Were those accusers in it just to take Cain out of contention?  More importantly, where is the journalist’s integrity to finish a story which is only half written?   It seems that after Cain dropped out, so did the media’s quest for truth and closure.  But, what about those poor victims?

This obvious ruse against Cain is a sad asterisk to our free elections.  Whether one supported his candidacy or not, this sort of character assassination is third world.  If this behavior is not addressed properly, it will become a political weapon and will eventually discourage the qualified to run.

To say that corruption has entered our election process would be an understatement.  The signs are everywhere.  So is the public’s quiet apathy.  In response to this apparent primary sham, we need to become jealously protective of our American system, regardless of our party affiliations.  We also need to understand what has led us to this election subterfuge.  We must to take an active part in all that makes America strong and we can start by acting like that rare breed that we are.  Americans!  Free and forever freedom loving.

Jim Bowman, Author of,
This Roar of Ours

Another Provocateur of Thought

The Roar

Another Provocateur of Thought

Behold, there appears to be another lamplighter on the horizon.  His forthcoming brilliance will be uniformly measured by a fed up public viewership/readership brought about by other media luminaries.  In the short span of twenty-four hours, this local provocateur has produced a lengthy anti-Santorum discourse which he no doubt has been waiting to vent.

Chris Freind authored an essay which left little doubt as to his political sentiments.   Labeling  his treatise as anti-Santorum just doesn’t quite do it or him justice.  Within one day of Santorum’s rise in Iowa, Freind spouts forth a diatribe from an inconsequential funeral appearance which he then determines is an example of Santorum’s “arrogance,” as he briskly by passed the line of mourners waiting to pay their respects.   Astounding, as to his recall of what obviously occurred so long ago.  This writing was deemed so pertinent and accurate that it was immediately published by a local paper.  Such attention is indicative against any and all who may present a challenge to Obama,  and in itself, has drawn the public’s attention and mounting ridicule.

Freind is not alone with his venomous journalistic attack.  He is arm in arm with many well known thought provocateurs.  For too long, these semi/self anointed opinion “experts” have ruled the day.  Not any longer since the 2010 midterms seemed to impart a second giant step for man and womenkind.  The army of thought soldiers, whether from a televised format or the written dailies, began to lose their public following as one by one they showed their hidden designs.  This desertion continues as alternate sources, such as this venue, now attract the frustrated and curious.

This election year will no doubt  continue with the character assassinations of Republican candidates.  Since the press is a liberal industry, this one sided assault is now understood and expected.  However, with this recognition, a hardened insulation begins to form.  As a result,  the yesterdays of effectiveness from these provocateurs lessen.

Emerging from the mid terms, certain insiders of thought became identified as many challengers presented threats to their established order.  This necessity, from an emerging Tea Party influx, not only uncovered what is now termed a RINO presence, it laid bare for all to see just how manipulative the speak masters had become.

To quote Freind, “true leaders actually lead because they are following a vision.”  While I have problems with the word “vision,” in the context with leadership which I’ve witnessed, I also understand that good and bad “visions” exist.  Maybe this literary wannabe should devote as much effort with evaluating Obama’s personal “vision,” which is sadly on display.

In the final Republican primary cut, I am sure that the selection will not be without faults, which the opposition will gleefully detail.  However, where were these primary investigations and spinning provocateurs during the 2008 Presidential race?  I guess Obama never caught their inquisitive nature by jumping in front of a funeral line.

Jim Bowman, Author of
This Roar of Ours

Santorum Arrogance Will Be His Downfall – Again

Santorum Arrogance Will Be His Downfall – Again

By Chris Freind

The deceased had been incredibly beloved:
successful businessman, political activist, philanthropist and the
ultimate family man. Friends and colleagues from far and wide came to
pay their respects to one who had touched their lives.

Predictably,
the line at the viewing was long that night — more than two hours.
But hundreds dutifully stood, passing the time as best they could under
the circumstances. Millionaire CEO’s conversed with blue collar workers,
reunited grade school friends embraced, and many reminisced of good
memories with their mutual friend.

Standing for hours while
barely moving is tough for anyone, but especially the elderly, as many
were. And yet all persevered, because that is what’s required when
paying final respects to a good friend.

Well, almost everyone.

Turns
out one person didn’t feel like waiting in line like everyone else. A
person who thought of himself as above the “masses,” someone in a class
by himself. Someone to whom the rules didn’t apply.

That person? Rick Santorum.

Instead
of honoring his friend by waiting in line, he glad-handed some
“politically connected” people in the vestibule while ignoring others
who, for some reason, were enthralled to see an ex-senator. After
wrapping up his political agenda at that “event,” Santorum proceeded to
walk right down the center aisle to greet the widow and her family —
completely bypassing the line snaking all the way around the Church.

Incredibly,
to the astonishment of those watching, he then turned around and strode
away, winking and waving to those poor souls stuck in line. Total time
in and out: less than 15 minutes.

Good thing too, for he had to
fly back to Washington to vote on the all-important appropriations bill
and defense budget and… oh wait. That couldn’t have been it, since he
had lost his senate re-election by a whopping 18 points several years
prior.

Santorum’s behavior offered more insight into his true
character than any vote could provide. His selfish actions disrespected
every person in that Church, but most of all the deceased, who, despite
being a big Santorum supporter, apparently wasn’t worth two hours of
Rick’s time.



So why would Santorum deliberately
thumb his nose at the hundreds in line, many of whom had been his
biggest financial and grassroots supporters? The same people, by the
way, that he would later court for his presidential run.

Arrogance.
Plain and simple. (That’s the second unofficial definition of
“Santorum,” and given the vulgarity of the first, we’ll leave it at
that.)

In large part, Santorum’s arrogance led to his shellacking in 2006, yet, as we will see, it was a lesson lost.

It
was arrogance that led him to publish his book before that election,
despite advisors begging him to wait until later, since many parts, they
warned, would be taken out of context by his opponent (which they
were).

It was arrogance that led him to become a big-spending,
big-government Republican while labeling himself a fiscal
“conservative.”

It was arrogance to claim he was a “Pennsylvania”
senator while effectively living year-round — with his family — in
Virginia.

And most damaging, it was arrogance which led Santorum
to endorse liberal Republican Arlen Specter over conservative icon Pat
Toomey late in the 2004 primary election— which many Pennsylvania
Republicans credit as the final push that delivered Specter his razor
thin victory.

For those who claim Santorum had to make that
glowing endorsement because of his Leadership position, think again.
True leaders actually lead because they are following a vision; simply
doing the bidding of others makes one a Leader in name only.

More
significantly, it was Santorum’s portrayal of himself — contrasted
with his subsequent actions — that eventually became a sticking point
for so many of his supporters. He asked people to believe in him,
selling them on the idea that he was not a typical politician, but
instead a man of integrity, for whom principle always came before Party.

Since
political backbone is extremely rare, it’s no surprise that most
politicians do exactly what their Party tells them to do. But Santorum
represented himself as something different. As a result, his repeated
failures as a leader — coming up small when he was needed most — run
deep, and can be attributed more than anything to an arrogance that
playing both sides is a winning strategy.



Nothing has changed.

Fast
forward to 2012. Lost in the media spotlight of the Iowa Caucuses is
the fact that Santorum sold his soul right out of the gate, playing both
sides on one of the most important issues to Iowans — ethanol
mandates.

Santorum voted against the subsidies his entire
legislative career, which included four years as a congressman. Yet
because he felt that he needed the Iowa “corn vote” to be viable, he
changed his tune and pathetically pandered to the ethanol crowd in the
Hawkeye State.

Forget the fact that corn-based ethanol as a fuel
is an unmitigated disaster that has led to higher fuel costs,
skyrocketing food prices, inflation, and hunger, since a staggering 40
percent of America’s corn crop is used for ethanol production. And
disregard the fact that, primarily because of ethanol mandates, the
price of corn hit an all-time high just a few months ago. And ignore
the painfully obvious fact that natural gas — from the virtually
limitless Marcellus Shale under Santorum’s now-adopted home state of
Pennsylvania — is the single biggest key to solving America’s foreign
energy dependence problem.

The biggest red flag for candidate
Santorum is not a policy issue but a question of character. No one held a
gun to Santorum’s head to run for President, nor to compete in Iowa. So
when he made the decision to run, and campaigned as a man of principle,
the very least voters should have expected was a campaign of conviction
— not a politically-calculated flip-flop right from the get-go on the
single-most important issue of our time.

Rather than speaking
the truth and advocating a principled stand — which, ironically, are
what voters are thirsting for more than anything — Santorum chose the
easy way out by becoming that which he claims to abhor. And once one
opens the door of political expediency, rationalizing that it’s the only
way to achieve the next level, the door never shuts, and the slope
becomes too slippery to ever regain one’s footing.

Rick Santorum
worked as hard as any of the GOP candidates in Iowa, but much of his
“success” in that state’s archaic caucuses was based on a false premise
— that he has the character necessary to be a President of true
leadership.

Santorum’s sound bite line after the Iowa results was
“game on.” But as America learns about the real Rick, it will soon be
“Game Over.”

And that’s no corn.

 

 

Santorum Arrogance Will Be His Downfall – Again