2012 GOP presidential candidates may find tea pot too hot to handle

I just finished reading an excellent article by Peter Wallsten, “Tea Party Shaping 2012 Race”, October 25, 2010, in the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Wallsten breaks down potential rivals Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney quite nicely. However, several notible candidates were omitted from the article.

What I find most interesting about the topic is the extent to which potential 2012 presidential contenders seem willing to go to harness the tea party momentum. It reminds me of when I was in high school, and a hot new girl transfers in. All the suave “chick magnets” come out and start busting a move. Sometimes two or three adolescents at a time would be lurking nearby, waiting for an opportunity to get her attention. Some resourceful suitors would give little gifts, open doors, or promise to take her to “really cool places” on dates. Others, more sophisticated, would resort to flattery.

What they usually found was the hot girl, the object of their adoration and/or lust, already had a life of her own and had other plans. She was already dating a college football player, or some pro hockey player. Preppy school boys simply held little or no appeal.

Anyone following contemporary American politics knows the names of most GOP presidential hopefuls looking to 2012. I have my favorites, but I believe any would be preferable to what currently sits in the Whitehouse.

My advice to any GOP presidential candidate looking to court the tea party passion — beware, she may be too hot to handle. Tea partiers are a savvy group. The reason they are tea partiers is because they know they are beautiful; they are tired of all the pick-up lines that have been tossed their way over the years; they have been promised presents and taken to places they did not want to go; and have been caressed in the night by lotharios only to be ignored the following day. If you seek a relationship with the tea party, the best strategy if you are a true conservative, is to be yourself. Others need not apply. If the tea party gets the idea that you are posing, or playing them, 2012 is over for you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Diversity vs. E Pluribus Unum


Diversity. What a pleasant sounding word. I see colorful posters bearing the word placed in prominence around the office where I work. I often see the word applied in noble motto: “Strength in Diversity” or “Celebrate Diversity”. What a lovely sentiment. What could be wrong with that? I am a German American, whose original German-born ancestor arrived in the United States of America in 1853 following the death of his first wife. I’m quite sure his life in Germany was shattered. He came to America destitute, with small children in tow. He remarried an Ohio woman and settled in the fertile fields of Illinois to continue his life as a farmer. I have an appreciation for Oktoberfest that may well be genetic. I’m sure my love of the food is at any rate. Growing up in the South-West, I also dearly love the Cinco de Mayo celebration (also for the food and drink – Mexican food is the bomb!). I often found myself in the racial minority on some of the streets where I grew up. My first serious girlfriend in High School was a Latina. Is that what “Celebrate Diversity” means? Successfully living and working alongside those who are different than us? That’s what it may seem, unless you think about it a bit more.

I believe those of the liberal persuasion who find themselves in contemporary positions of power and policy making (i.e. the guys who write the quaint sayings) may define “Diversity” as a variety or multiformity based on a point or respect in which things differ. Another way to say the same thing is the strength of the masses is derived from the individual socio-ethnic, economic, and racial class from which the individual comes; the greater those differences, the greater the power of the masses. Unfortunately, there are some among us who seek to empower themselves by promoting and harnessing those differences. The greater the differences, or needs of the individual, the greater their value to the liberal society or politician. I believe this definition is a defining theme of all that is liberal, and the clear antithesis to the original spirit of E Pluribus Unum as promoted by our Founding Fathers.

I have found that for every lovely idea or mechanism that exists in the physical world there is a diabolical counterfeit intended to obfuscate the intent and values embodied in the original. In the world of politics I’ve noticed the counterrfeits are most often foisted upon us by those promoting elitist multicultural materialism (liberals). Charitable giving is replaced with government mandated wealth redistribution; the church is replaced by the state as the source of devine authority; and the “village” replaces the family as the primary nurturing force for our children. Diversity is simply another diabolical counterfeit.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress empanelled a committee to oversee the design of a Great Seal of the United States of America. A number of suggestions were considered, with input by Benjamin Franklin and Charles Thomson. The Latin motto E Pluribus Unum was ultimately approved for inclusion on the obverse of the seal. Its translation closely means “Out of many, one”. It also describes an action of “Many uniting into one”. Charles Thomson said the motto refers to the union of states, but I believe the ideal of E Pluribus Unum could go beyond that. If the states comprise the nation, it can be said that the people comprise the states.

My best friend in High School is second generation American. His father legally came to the United States just in time to enlist in the U.S. Army during World War Two. Following the war, this man worked and put himself through college earning a B.S. Degree in Engineering. Following graduation, he secured a life-time job as an aero-space engineer in Southern California. I remember this father not allowing his children to speak Spanish in their home claiming, “You’re Americans now! Speak English!” At the time, I thought that was a bit harsh, and that learning Spanish would be an advantage for someone living in California. But, their father greatly valued the United States more than his origins, and was more than willing to place all he had upon her alters. In fact, my friend recently retired from the United States Air Force following a successful career as a bomber pilot. All those siblings consider themselves Americans, first and foremost. I never saw anyone in this family look back after coming to this country.

As for my German ancestor, he enlisted in the 15th Illinois Cavalry, United States Army when the Civil War broke out in 1861. He campaigned in the western theater until he suffered a debilitating injury. His grandson fought in France during World War One, against Germany. Later, many on my “German side of the family” fought during World War Two, several again fighting in Europe. And me? I’m writing this blog from an “undisclosed location” in the Middle-East.

The ultimate point of this rodomontade is simply this; I believe this country is being torn apart by diverse groups seeking their own vain ambitions. Being an American is no longer as important as achieving those ambitions. The extensive entitlement state that attracts dead weight must be eliminated quickly and efficiently if we are to have a chance at pulling out of the current nose dive. I’m all for giving anyone who wants to be an American a chance at that dream, but they have to truly want to be American and understand what that means. Remember “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment