Real Leadership requires Real Leadership

Yes, yes, this is a take off of Newt’s “real change requires real change” slogan; but since he decided not to run for president, who will take the real slogan for the 2008 presidential election – “Real Leadership Requires Real Leadership”?

I’m an evangelical, pro-life conservative and have been involved in conservative politics on some level since the early 80’s when the Gipper ascended to the Oval Office.  With Newt out, I’m forced to reflect on the remaining candidates for a solution to what ails our country and sadly, I’m not too excited.

Every candidate is running a campaign predicated on the federal bloated government essentially staying just as it is; and this, my friends, is the proverbial elephant in the living room.  Unless a leader emerges that will use the “bully pulpit” in much the same way as FDR and LBJ except in reverse, I’m afraid the republic is in deep trouble.

Just look at the SCHIP program and you will see what the liberal democrats have in store for us once they take the White House in 08, more and more FDR and LBJ!  But who cares, it’s only money – right?

Recently, I took it upon myself to conduct a little informal grassroots poll on the good old USA’s fiscal health.  Not surprisingly, the answers I received where exactly as I expected – even though every person I asked defined themselves as “conservative”.  More shocking, many were professionals with advanced degrees!

Here are the questions I asked:

We’re in such trouble and not one candidate is leading on the right issue – the size of this bloated enormous federal government.  Psst… by the way, the proposed federal spending in 08 is almost 3 TRILLION dollars.

Sadly, the current crop of candidates are absent the chutzpah to take on the real issue confronting us all – legalized theft by the federal government.

Now, before I’m labeled a libertarian, trust me I’m not; I’m a conservative.  But we’ve seemed to have lost our way.  We’ve grown comfortable and sort of ignored the explosion of government encroachment on our lives.  Kind of like the old frog in the kettle parable, most of us conservatives think the hot water we feel is really just a new hot tub we bought with our home equity line of credit.  No big deal, it’s not that hot – yet. 

We’ve abdicated to the liberals since the 30’s and have refused to fight; for what reason I don’t know.  Somehow, we’ve grown comfortable with the federal government unbuttoning and reaching into our back pocket, pulling out our wallets, opening them up and taking out whatever they think they need all the while whispering in our ears, “don’t worry, it’s for the children”, or “believe me, I’ll respect you in the morning”.  Over and over again, we either quiver or are seduced by the whisper.

We should all oppose theft and that’s exactly what it is – theft.  What else can you call it when by legal fiat, a tax collector can take from my family that which I’ve worked hard to earn to give it to somebody who hasn’t.  This is the worst kind of theft because by using the power of law, we become powerless.  Last year, I paid $25,000 in combined taxes; I certainly could have spent it more wisely than some bureaucrat in DC.

Look at this beauty to see where we’re all headed (from the Heritage Foundation  http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_P/p4.cfm - A MUST READ!!)

At the end of the day, we reap exactly what we’ve sowed.  We’ve retreated from the fight for 60+ years and now the fight will be doubly hard – but it must be fought or in the end, we lose and lose BIG!

Make the top 4 Republican candidates speak to this issue, write them, call talk radio, confront them at candidate forums, ask them what they intend to do to shrink the size of government.  So far, Rudy is the closest to real policy on his website with this quip “All spending is discretionary. Read the Constitution. Congress has to appropriate it; the President has to sign it. All spending is discretionary and it has to be looked at from the point of view of, can we afford it now? Is it appropriate to pass it on to the next generation? This is what I did in New York City. I restored fiscal discipline ..." 

Just remember, nature abhors a vacuum and in politics this is doubly true.  Since the 30’s, the vacuum has been filled by the liberal socialists – will you fight back?

The Movietization of America

The Myth of Take Two’s on the Battlefield and in Crime

Bruce Willis leaps from bush to bush returning fire, all the while dodging bullets from an overwhelming enemy force in Tears of the Sun (7,166,666 viewers).  John Travolta, breathing heavily behind a wall prepares to “take out” his foe with a well directed headshot in Face Off (18,704,296 views).  Neo in the Matrix (46,915,413 viewers) is seemingly able to slow down time and bend before the bullet hits him; a truly amazing feat.  How many Take Two’s were there to get the scenes just right?

America has had a love affair with action movies for decades; could it be that we’ve reached a point where that love affair has tainted and twisted our view of war and police action?  Read a newspaper on the prosecution of the Iraq war and you’ll see words like surgical strike, and precision guided bombs with little collateral damage.  CSI, the popular Fox series 24 and others feed a sense that the average soldier, police officer or FBI agent is able to wound someone at will from 100 yards. 

On a personal level, I was recently exposed to this nonsensical thinking while serving on a Grand Jury.  A shooting, leading to the death of a criminal occurred in our small community.  The police officer, a highly skilled experienced and brave man shot the suspect 4 times leading to the suspects death.  During deliberations, not a small number of jurors asked why the police officer didn’t just “shoot the suspect in the knee”.  Having been around firearms my whole life, my jaw literally dropped as the buzz around the courtroom seriously discussed this possibility.  Fortunately, the expert who was testifying on behalf of the police officer intervened and chastised all of us that what you see in movies doesn’t really happen on the street. 

And who could forget this gem from Katie Couric in response to the Air Marshall shooting of a frantic passenger claiming to have a bomb aboard an American Airlines flight in December 2005: "Do they always shoot to kill, Tony? In other words, I guess the average person hearing this might think: isn't there a way where they could have shot this person and not killed him? Wounded him or incapacitated him in some way without killing him?"  In a movie yes, in real life, that’s not their training.

According to MPA Worldwide Market Research & Analysis, in 2005, 81% of the public went to see a movie representing 285,930,000 Americans.  There are no statistics for the number of action movie viewers, but both experientially and anecdotally, how else can you account for the inane comments of Couric and a fairly well educated grand jury pool?

In the end, dealing with criminals and prosecuting The War in Iraq is nothing remotely similar to the movies the American public view each year.  Movies are made by silly people (in general) who make a living pretending to be someone they’re not in real life - all to entertain us.  Actor’s are not the real deal in war and crime and unlike a movie set, faced with real combat or staring at a criminal there are no “Take Two’s!”