2012 is an ominous year. Does anyone else find it interesting that the Mayan calendar supposedly predicts the destruction of the world right after the possible reelection of Barrack Obama? While I don’t believe in the Mayan calendar I do believe an Obama second term is too real of an apocalyptic scenario that I find myself looking for signs of the end of Conservative hope. When the Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, Josephus claimed that a cow gave birth to a lamb as a sign of the destruction that was to come (The Wars of the Jews 6.5.3). As shocking as this is, we have a similar phenomenon in this race. No, they didn’t give birth to anything odd or of another species (yet), but Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have transformed themselves, almost overnight, from stalwarts of the conservative movement into class-warfare spouting, anti-capitalist Democrats. While this doesn’t foretell the end of the world, it does foretell the end of their campaigns and possibly heralds an Obama second term.

A couple days ago a Gingrich Super Pac came out attacking Romney because when his venture capital firm took over a company to transform it, many of the workers would be laid off. Gingrich could have distanced himself from the remarks, because by law a Super Pac can say what they want and raise as much money as they want, but it is illegal for them to coordinate with the candidate. However, instead of doing this Gingrich has come out in agreement with these anti-capitalistic charges. Never one to be outpaced in a race to the stupid-line, Rick Perry took the same course calling Romney a “Vulture Capitalist.”
Before going any further, let me assure you that I am no Romney supporter. I agree that Obama-care is simply Romney-care writ large, and I see him as too moderate to even imagine him as the conservative/libertarian firebrand this country needs. However, to have two supposed conservatives using such emotional charges to attack free market capitalism is appalling. I could hold my nose and cast my vote for Romney, Paul, Huntsman or Santorum (yes, it would take overlooking serious problems to vote for any of them). This would be a vote of “Anyone But Obama!” I might be able to hold my nose enough to vote for Gingrich, if he were to win the nomination—about as likely as the Colts making the Super Bowl. As for Perry, I have decided that I could not vote for him for dogcatcher.

When Perry first entered the race I had problems with his record, but was willing to overlook them. The biggest problem I had was the way he tried to force a new vaccination for HPV on the girls of Texas. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his views on federalism would prevent him from trying such things on the national level. When voters are willing to overlook some things, it is helpful if the candidate doesn’t keep stacking on things to overlook. Pile crap high enough and it can no longer be overlooked, and much of what was coming from this campaign is pure crap. It is so bad, when a Perry ad comes on TV our houseplants get a fresh burst of life—as if they’ve been fertilized.

In a national debate, Perry, when questioned about his support for in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens, said that anyone who disagreed with him did not have a heart. I disagree with him and I have a heart—I keep it in a jar on my desk, so I can look at it. By doing this he alienated the whole other side of the argument. While many who disagreed may have figured that they could overlook his position, it is hard to overlook his stereotype of the opposition.

Perry soon found he was in trouble after this, and after he forgot his talking points in another debate (He couldn’t remember the departments he pledged to cut—it’s hard to trust you to keep your promises after the election if you can’t remember them during the election). To fix this he decided to pander to the basest feelings of the electorate. He came out with a promise to transform Congress into a part-time legislature. According to him, elect him as president and all Congressmen would have to return home to make a living between sessions. Their pay and benefits would be pared down to their new part-time status. While I agree our freedom is greatest when Congress is deadlocked or out of session, Perry forgot a little document called the Constitution. Congress makes its own rules, sets its own schedule and its own pay. He could recommend legislation along these lines, but who thinks a majority in both houses would support such a thing. This was the type of promise a politician loves—impossible to keep, so failure is not your fault.

As if these were not enough to give the finishing blow to the Perry campaign, he attacks Romney by smearing free-market capitalism. While many readers may agree with this assessment of venture capital and the process used in taking an unprofitable company and turning it around, you have to understand the reason such companies exist and why they do what they do.

Corporate revenues and resources can be broken down into outgoing and incoming. Incoming includes all revenue received from customers for product. Outgoing is everything needed to keep the doors open, the lights on and to produce the product that will bring in the revenue. A company is profitable when incoming is greater than outgoing—it must cost less to produce the product than is received through the sale of it. When failing to turn a profit a company can either cut its outgoing expenses or increase its incoming revenues. To increase income a company can develop (i) a new product line, (ii) a new customer base for its current products or (iii) raise prices. Note that the first two options will also increase the outgoing as new production lines must be opened and new employees hired, etc. The third is the easiest, but is only possible when the market will permit the new price. All three are tied to the market. If there is a market for a new line, one can be developed; if there is a greater market for the old line, it can be expanded; if the market will tolerate higher prices, they can be increased. The free market rules.

The other side of the corporate coin is outgoing expenses. These include facilities, equipment, materials, and wages. If unprofitable a company may move into smaller facilities to save on rent or mortgage. They may find more efficient equipment or a material supplier that is cheaper. Of course, these do not only go down. Over time they go up. Land, materials, equipment and wages are all inflationary, so a company’s profitability is affected, on both the outgoing and incoming side, by market forces. It is not uncommon to have a company pinched by falling prices for their products and rising prices for the materials to make the product. In time a free market balances these out if everything is left fluid to the demands of the market, but if even one area is unmovable then the market must take drastic action to set things right. This brings us to wages. Wages are usually contractual and while increases are easy to implement, cuts in wages are very difficult. Because of this wages tend to ratchet up.

In time the immovable nature of the wages may increase the cost of production beyond any hope of profitability. When this happens there are limited options. One, the company goes under and the employees are forced to take other jobs. These new jobs often involve a pay cut, which permits the price of wages to be adjusted back to market levels. The other company is for someone to take over who is not contractually obligated to the wage structure. This new management can offer to let employees keep their current jobs, if they accept cuts to pay or benefits. Those who will not accept are free to take their skills elsewhere. Either way, the market is balanced and wages settle back to where they should be according to the free market. The unchanging nature of wages in a company make these last two options necessary. We could do away with the corporate “takeover and turn around” if we set wages to fluctuate with the market, but this would not be popular—nor really even desirable.

Rick Perry should rethink his view of capitalism. While he and Newt Gingrich would be shocked to be accused of attacking capitalism, this is exactly what they have done. This type of pandering might work on the Democratic ticket of victimization and class warfare, but is out of place among Republicans. Republicans understand, in the words of Milton Friedman, “Capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.” Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, in an attempt to undermine Mitt Romney, have each leveled their guns at freedom.

The current attacks on Mitt Romney for changing his political views are a bit short-sighted. Truly, we want a candidate who will stand for his beliefs regardless of the political cost or outcome. Yes, it would be nice to have a candidate who believes what he has always believed without change. However, if this is the criteria for trust, why attempt to convince others to change views? If a person, once pro-choice, cannot be trusted upon changing to pro-life, why try to convince abortion supporters to change? What good are debate and discussion if we are going to only trust those who maintain their view despite the evidence?

Personally, it can be preferable when one says, “I once held view ‘A,’ but evidence convinced me otherwise and I know hold view ‘B’.” Such a person demonstrates thoughtfulness in their views. Rather than regurgitating the view of a parent, teacher, professor or preacher, they think through issues to find the truth. Those who have never changed any views were either very lucky to be spoon fed perfect truth without error, or (most likely) they have put little thought into their beliefs. Why would we automatically reject the thoughtful converted one in favor of someone who shows no sign of thinking through positions? Simply agreeing with us, is not proof of deep thought or even reasonable views.

Several years ago I was discussing with a friend his childhood in a very strict Anabaptist sect which I won’t name. He told me that his father used to say, “Beware the converted.” Though the Christian gospel requires Christ’s people to reach out to the unbeliever, this group became so untrusting of outsiders that even those responding to the message of Christ and seeking membership among them were held in suspicion. This would shock most Christians, but this is exactly how does this differ from how we treat those who change their political views.

When a candidate stands up and says, “Yes, I was once pro-choice, but now I’m pro-life.” We should celebrate a victory and ask what convinced them. It is possible the argument or experience that convinced them would work on others. Don’t forget, even Ronald Reagan—hero of the conservative movement—was once pro-choice. While I cannot attest to Mitt Romney’s credentials as a pro-lifer, I am not going to spend years working to convince others that life begins at conception and then slap a candidate who says he now agrees simply because he once disagreed. There is a certain place for giving the benefit of the doubt.

Last night Republicans in Iowa spoke out about the future of this country. The final results are interesting because the party mainline candidate won, but only by eight votes (according to the numbers published by Fox News). Right on the tail of the winner was Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Santorum is so close their results are almost indiscernible and Ron Paul slipped ahead enough times to cause the mainline GOP pundits to develop a twitch.

It is of course easy to tell what happened. A set number of those attending decided their primary qualification was a sense of electability and held firm for Romney. Then the ideologues were split among Santorum and Paul. Of course, this was inevitable. Santorum appeals more to the evangelical, social conservative, while Paul appeals more to the fiscal conservative. Being libertarian many of Paul’s views on social issues would be seen as libertine and unacceptable to most evangelicals. Sometimes I think I am the only libertarian evangelical in the world—though I know a couple others who may qualify.

Since Iowa is a state where voters can show up at the caucus and change their affiliation to vote, a large number of independents supported Paul. This of course skews the numbers for Santorum because it means the lion’s share of rock-ribbed conservative GOP voters in Iowa must have voted for him. Had Paul not been in the race, it is likely many of his GOP supporters would have selected Santorum as the anti-Romney candidate, giving Santorum a runaway evening.

Last night is a perfect example of what will happen if there is a third party run by a serious candidate. Unfortunately, Paul refuses to take such a run off the table. He did so early in the race declaring that he would not go third party but would run as a Republican, but recently on a late night talk show he said a third party run was still possible. In Iowa, Santorum was the candidate closer to the values of the state. Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Santorum supporter and believe he has much to answer for and could be very vulnerable in a general election, but Iowa is not the beltway. He should have been a shoe-in, but with the addition of another ideologue candidate taking away a large enough number of the base and a good number of independents, Iowans ended up with a candidate they have little in common with—one whom the majority of the state did not want.

This scenario is going to keep playing itself out. State by state, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (or Perry in some) will split the conservative vote and Paul will bring in enough independents to pad his numbers until we end up with Mr. Romney as the official candidate for our party. I fear the skewed numbers will convince Paul that he has a shot and he’ll leave the GOP at the last moment to run a third party candidacy. If this happens get ready for four more years of Obama.

How to Win a Local Election

I am going to shock many of my Christian friends today because I am doing something we are all taught not to do. I am celebrating a death. More monster than man, he was, but we are always taught to think of what it would be like to be in that person’s shoes and say “There but by the grace of God, go I.” If there ever were an exception, perhaps it is found in Kim Jong Il, the petty potentate of North Korea.

Kim, the successor and son of North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung, recently died at the age of 69. Upon his father’s death he took the reins in that isolated country and was responsible for policies that led to mass starvation and cannibalism, while continuing his father’s policies of purging political enemies in concentration camps. The elder Kim (the father), whose mother was reputedly a Christian deaconess, instituted the Juche heresy in which the Father (Kim Il Sung), the son (Kim Jong Il) and Juche (National self-reliance) ideology are literally worshipped as a state trinity. Kim Jong Il expanded this into a full-blown cult while threatening to destroy “the Land of Morning Calm” (traditional name of Korea) and enslave of his southern neighbor, while shaking his nuclear fist at the world.

As a Christian, I would hope and pray Kim Jong Il confessed the name of Christ prior to death—the same prayer I said for his father. This, however, does not keep me from celebrating. Few men have caused more suffering and death through their personal actions. If he confessed Christ, then I will celebrate the mercy of God. If he didn’t, the lover of liberty within me feels there has to be a special place in hell for men like him and his father. They are a perfect example of Lord Acton’s adage, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Anyone wanting to understand life under the Kim regime should read Eyes of the Tailless Animals, by Yi Sun Ok.

This week, Mitt Romney was endorsed by the DE Moines Register and the talking heads are busy debating how this will impact his campaign. Many people overlook how useless such endorsements really are. Not only are they useless, but they actually demonstrate a problem with the endorsee.

Newspapers will endorse someone from both sides of the race. If there is both a Democrat and a Republican running they will endorse a candidate for each party. In seeking the candidate to endorse they look for those who match up with the values of the paper’s owners or editorial staff. This means they look for a Democrat and a Republican who each share their values. So when everything is done and the endorsements have been announced we see which two people have the closest values to each other and are the least different. The Register has told us Mitt Romney is the most Democrat-like of all the candidates. When you see such endorsements take notice and vote with care.

I am sick of hearing about the evils of gridlock and the virtues of compromise. I understand compromise is an essential part of our government, and to accomplish anything each side must surrender some of their pet ideology and seek common ground. However, the founders never imagined over 500 full time people whose only purpose to exist is the creation of law—easily defined as new limits to our freedoms. It is easy to see that our nation is never as free as when Washington is in full-fledged gridlock.

In the vitriol against gridlock, one target is the Republican controlled House of Representatives. Those of us who worked so hard to take the House last election have to understand that since we only control the House we are limited in our ability to influence law and policy. Only bills attractive to the Democrat controlled Senate will pass; so blocking the agenda of the Left is our most powerful tool. When you hear it reported that Congress refuses to get along and pass some bit of legislation, see such reports as banners pronouncing “Freedom Survives Another Day.”

I know many will complain that if Congress and the President don’t work together the economy will not be fixed. Actually it is government tweaking and interference that keeps the economy on the rocks. The best thing to happen to the economy would be a removal of that interference. If Congress won’t actively remove the onerous regulations that have strangled our economy, the next best is a gridlocked Congress that can implement no new ones.

The NTSB is recommending every state to ban use of any device while driving. Their recommendation includes use of hands-free devices. While sounding like good law there are some things I would like to point out. One is the unintended consequences of such a law. In our city of San Antonio a ban on texting while driving was passed. I have noticed that drivers, instead of holding their phones up at windshield level to text, now continue to text but hide them in their laps and look down to text—a dangerous situation made more dangerous.

I would also point out that the accident they are basing this current emotional call on happened in a state that already had such a law for those under 21 (http://www.iihs.org/laws/cellphonelaws.aspx) and the law did not prevent the accident. If the existence of the law did not prevent the accident, why would anyone imagine the expansion of the law to work any better?

One final point to make is about the other vehicles in the accident. The pickup driven by the texting teen struck the rear of a semi when it slowed for a construction zone. That accident was probably survivable. The problem was the two buses that struck the rear of the pickup. The first one struck with enough force to push it over the pickup, rolling it up like a jelly roll. The second bus struck the first bus. Why has no one pointed out that the buses were following too close? I used to drive a school bus and company policy was that any accident in which you hit something with the front of your bus resulted in automatic termination because such an accident is always preventable with the proper following distance. Had these drivers been at a proper distance there would have been no fatalities.

The initiating incident was the texting teen, but the killing blows were delivered by two bus drivers overlooking their safety training and driving too close to safely stop. This matters little though, because it plays into the hands of some who would use emotion to make laws. The actual cause of the deaths will not be addressed, but will be swept aside in an emotional assault on cell usage. Yes, it is stupid to text while driving. Yes, something should be done. However, until you convince the drivers, efforts to force them will be ineffective.

Barack Obama rode a mantra of “Hope” and “Change” into the Whitehouse. The Republican Party was disappointed by leaders infected with the neoconservative heresy. Eight years of majority dithered away as Republicans acted like Democrats to buy votes. Instead, they alienated their base, lost their majority along with the White House.

In 2008 the GOP ran a candidate ill equipped to inspire the base. While he could promise little more than four years of the same, Obama promised something different. Of course it would be different. He was using the word “Change,” wasn’t he? He said he would change things. Of course there was little said about what he would change beyond such bromides as “share the wealth” and “fairness.” His Senate record of voting “Present” was no help pointing out the direction he would take the country. Yet he was able to inspire people and assure them that he was the savior they had awaited for so long.

This election we have a chance to make real changes in Washington. We have the House already, and a Senate majority is within reach. Hopefully both will be dominated by rock-ribbed conservatives. The problem is our ticket for the White House. None of this lot really inspires the base, in general. Sure each has their supporters, but none seem able to coalesce the base into a political machine. Each will have to rely on a fear of four more years in the Obama wasteland to keep their detractors in check, pushing them to show up at the polls, nose held tightly to cast their ballot. But show up they must. This is because while there they will vote for something even more important than the butt parked in the Oval Office. Every member of Congress and 1/3 of the Senate are up to reelection. Remember, the House initiates all appropriations bills (they hold the checkbook) and the Senate must approve all court nominees and treaties (they hold the keys to our freedoms).

The most important thing the GOP candidate can do is motivate. Rather than running as the Anti-Obama, this person must run as America’s answer—inspiring hope. Ronald Reagan did not simply run against Carter. Yes, his quip about a recovery being defined as Jimmy Carter losing his job was funny and creative—and oh, so very true! However, he spent most of the time playing up America and the bright future that was ahead for her if only the people would put him in office. We had just ended the long bloody Vietnam conflict. Inflation was rampant, unemployment through the roof. Things were so bad that previous laws of economics were rewritten giving us the previously unknown “stagflation.” After Nixon’s shenanigans, Ford’s questionable pardon of him, and Carters general ineptitude, people had a deep distrust for politicians. Well guess who is back. We have Jimmy Carter the sequel. It is time to send this guy off into the private sector, once and for all. The way to do that is to take a play from the Gipper and inspire. Don’t play on our fears; draw from our hopes.

Mitt Romney has to be feeling a bit like the chunky kid in a neighborhood ballgame. You know the kid I’m talking about—the PC crowd would say he has a lot of heart, but he still gets picked last every time. In a field of his fellow Republicans, waiting to get picked for the team Mitt maintains his steady mid 20’s position, while watching others go from back of the pack to surge ahead of him. Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and now Newt Gingrich have all passed him up with the base of the GOP, only to be brought down by accusations or the unfortunate opening of their own mouths. Mitt must be getting the message by now. While a small field has decided that he is the best bet for beating Obama, most Republicans seem to be voting “anyone but Mitt.”

Somehow I’m having visions of 2008 all over again. It looks like, just like in 2008, we will have our candidate chosen by the media. Once he has secured the nomination the media will turn on him fiercely and protect their candidate Barack Obama. While current polls show Romney as a serious contender for Obama this lasts only until the media make him their favorite whipping boy. I know the party apparatchiks who support candidates like Romney expect us in the libertarian/ conservative camp to hold our nose and support the centrist candidate. I know the alternative, if we take our toys and go home, is four more years of economic lunacy and Chicago style politics; however, I want to ask, when will the GOP centrists hold their nose to support our candidate? I’ve been around long enough to know the answer to this involves a cold day in a hot place.

Yesterday evening, watching the local news, I saw a story on residents of our city returning from protesting Arizona’s new immigration law. Being Memorial Day, it was painful to hear some of the comments being made about our country and efforts to secure our borders. Apparently every country, including Mexico, is allowed to have secure borders with the sole exception of the one country everyone wants to go to. In honor of these protests I thought I’d offer some points for consideration and a couple recommendations for the state of Arizona.

A secure Southern border will be good for Mexico. As it stands illegals send billions of dollars back to Mexico propping up a broken system. So long as this steady flow of cash continues there is no need for our southern neighbor to fix anything. The country suffers because politicians continue to turn a blind eye to their mismanagement and their country’s less fortunate sons and daughters go off to America to send money back to family. Throughout the Border States wire services to send money to Mexico is a major industry. Of course, those who come here should be allowed to make their own choices about their money and have the freedom to send it home, but only if they are here earning the money legally. With the current situation, the Mexican government has its claws in the pockets of our tax –payers as well as their own.

There is no such thing as a law-abiding illegal alien. This phrase makes my head spin every time I hear it. Of course, I have to admit it has been a while since I heard it because I think even the logic-deficient, bleeding heart left realized it was a bit over the top. However I do still here about those who come here and try hard to obey the laws and work constructively to earn a living. While this is true it overlooks the fact that their very presence in this country is illegal. When this person crossed the border he or she flagrantly broke our laws. When this person took employment without a work-permit more laws were broken. Each day residing in this country and each day working here is another day of illegal activity. Even the nicest of illegal aliens is a criminal, by definition.

Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration insults those who work to enter this country legally. Everyday thousands of people realize the dream of setting foot on the shores of the United States. This country has always attracted the best and brightest of the world’s people. Coming here legally can cost thousands depending upon the country of origin, but these people see it as worth the cost to live in America and have the chances this offers. When we permit a large population to cross and unsecure border and take up long term residence in the US we insult those who come here legally. In effect we are saying to them, “You must pay and jump through hoops to come here. These others get to come here free and without any paperwork.”

Current support for illegal immigration is racist. Those who see Mexicans as somehow in special need or a special exception to the immigration laws, assume that these people just can’t make it without help from a benevolent government. Of course their own government will not help them, unless you count the help they give breaking our laws. Some people feel guilty, believing that being white has given advantages unavailable to other races. This is nothing but a feel good version of the White Man’s burden. It was once seen as a virtue for the white race to control the world and use its power to help those of darker complexions out of barbarity and ignorance. Now it is the white man’s burden to lift up the poor Mexican who comes here illegally. Of course, those believing this do so because they also believe without help from them (the superior white person) the Mexican is unable to help him or herself. Anyone having much contact with Mexican immigrants knows these people are perfectly capable of helping themselves.

After seeing the people from my own city greeted like heroes from a protest in Arizona, I have a recommendation for the state of Arizona. Wherever a group of protesters gather against this law, there is the place to check papers. Permit them to assemble as is their right, but each person participating in or observing should have their residency status checked with those here illegally detained and turned over to ICE. You will very quickly thin the ranks of support at these rallies.

Please consider one other recommendation. Since California, your neighbor, is one of the loudest states standing against you and ICE is threatening to refuse to cooperate with your law enforcement in any cases springing from this law, there is an easy way to handle both problems at once. I recommend you start your own deportation agency. As your officers discover and detain illegals put them on a bus and drop them off in California.