So here we are once again, with a terrorist threat nearly thwarted by the expert skill of those in charge.  Those elected and appointed to safeguard the lives of American citizens foiled the man who is now known as ‘the underwear bomber.’  Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, hid explosive powder in his underwear and an explosive gel alone his legs.  With a blanket covering his lower body, he began to mix the two together.  Thankfully though, he was stopped.

That would all be well and good if it was true.  While the part about the explosives is true, the part about our government saving the day was not.  Those two compounds needed to be mixed and settle for a half an hour before they were ignited.  He waited twenty minutes.  If he had waited another 10 minutes, there would have been a huge explosion, and three hundred or more lives would have been lost.  The airliner would have gone up and the damage on the tarmac and airport would have been unimaginable.

AbdulMutallab’s father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab is one of his countries wealthiest bankers.  He was so disturbed by the radicalization of his son that he went to the officials of his country, who them took him to the American embassy and local CIA officials.  He claimed that his son had been radicalized by Islamic militants in Yemen, and told them all that he had learned from his son.  Reports were sent to the CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.

AbdulMutallab’s name was added to a list of half a million suspects with suspected terrorist ties.  They did not place his name on the country’s no-fly list, and they did not contact Yemeni intelligence officials, according to the Yemen government.  The ball was completely dropped.  It could have been a lazy bureaucrat who didn’t file the case report quickly or thoroughly enough.  It’s more likely however, that through political correctness has so engulfed and strangled our intelligence apparatus that we simply have forgotten how to get into the fight and protect ourselves

Israel has not has had an airline attack in decades, because they profile those who are a danger to them.  Those with bombs and guns are searched, and arrested.  I’ll make the point very bluntly:  Safeguarding the lives of innocents is more important than potentially inconveniencing a foreigner or two.  If they are on a list of any kind, they should have to go through extra screening to enter the United States.  We should not care about their inconvenience and feelings.  Why should we risk our way of life?

Janet Napolitano’s greatest contribution to the Department of Homeland Security was her memo on profiling conservatives in the country as possible homegrown terrorists, but not Muslims.  So terrified of the ACLU and the Daily Kos they have become that those in charge with our security would allow a would-be terrorist into our borders in order to seem ‘nice.’

President Obama said that there would be an investigation.  He gave off a speech that said led the impression that heads would soon roll.  However, I know that Obama shares the same ideology as Napolitano, Pelosi, and all the rest of them.  He may want to plug a hole in security because it reflects poorly on him, happening on his watch.  I doubt he would try AbdulMutallab under a military tribunal, or consider any solution, which did not immediately make it more difficult to prevent further things like this from happening.  It is more likely that a far greater number of heads would roll if someone had not read this terrorist his rights and afforded him constitutional protection and a fresh latte.

Mr. President, let the CIA and FBI talk to each other.  Tear down the politically correct veil that had blinded us to threats and tied our hands.  Let us profile those who are on lists and considered a threat.  Lets stop giving Visas to people on watch lists, or revoke them once they are placed on said list.

Why should we risk our way of life?

At one of her recent press conferences, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s was asked by a CNS News reporter, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” the Speaker was clearly agitated by the question and responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The reporter said, “Yes, yes, I am.” Without commenting further, Pelosi shook her head in disgust and took a question from another reporter. Later on, the Speaker’s press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding the constitutionality of socialized medicine that “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Like every member of Congress, Pelosi takes this sacred oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” She swears to defend the Constitution, but does not take this question seriously? The arrogance or ignorance is amazing. The question is legitimate, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the enumerated powers of Congress and there is no provision for health care. Furthermore, the Tenth
Amendment makes it explicitly clear that the powers not listed in the Constitution are to be left to the states and the citizens.

For decades government has gone well beyond it Constitutional responsibility and has become more cavalier about the role of government. Essentially our government is on auto-pilot and simply picks up new duties as it deems fit.

I have said often on my radio show that to be for the Constitution is simply not “cool” and you will not be taken serious in Washington. I have had friends — both Democrat and Republican — smugly smile at me and say that arguments about the Constitution are laughable. Discussions about a “strict constructionist” view can only be academic.

I must ask the question, by what standard than are we going to judge government? If not the Constitution, what will be our measure of whether government is serving us properly? It cannot be popular opinion, because the masses can be convinced to believe anything. That is why the Founding Fathers put such safe guards against pure democracy.

This is why I have grown frustrated by the “liberal” versus “conservative” debate. All these two views argue is the pace towards socialism. Liberals ask why we are not fully under government control while conservatives want to argue to slow down the pace. What is there to “conserve” any more? Massive deficits and debts? Taxation out of control? A regulatory system that is hostile to freedom? If we are serious about the Constitution we should drop the conservative label and state we wish to restore the Constitution.

Until we have a serious debate about the Constitution we can only expect our freedoms to further disappear while are political leaders show extreme joy on the left or slight discomfort on the right. The leaders in Washington believe there is nothing government cannot do and they intend to only prove that in the years to come.

Economist Walter Williams recently noted that “in each new session of Congress since 1995, John Shadegg, (R-Ariz.,) has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, a measure ‘To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.’ The highest number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House of Representatives is 54 and it has never had co-sponsors in the Senate until this year, when 22 senators signed up. The fact that less than 15 percent of the Congress supports such a measure demonstrates the kind of contempt our elected representatives have for the rules of the game — our Constitution.”

How has your member of Congress stood on this important first step in restoring Constitutional government? Instead of arguing with politicians on specific policies, let us make them defend their view of the document they swore to defend.

Unemployment is devastating on both people and governments. Not only do people feel the stress of wondering how needs will be met, they often take serious efforts of curtailing spending ,which has a direct impact on consumer spending. Governments suffer too. Local, state, and federal governments find unemployment is a drain on them as they are often unable to collect as much revenue as they could in more prosperous economies and those who are unemployed will often depend on agencies to help through these difficult times.

With that, President Obama recently had a Job Summit and he told those in attendance if there is “anything” the government can do to help increase employment, let him know. With US unemployment at the highest levels in a quarter of a century, “anything” should be taken quite seriously. Our situation has become urgent and steps should be made to act quickly. These include:

Our situation is dire, the answers to our problems are in the market place and not in the halls of government or in job creation summits. These type of actions would have the government give the type of “stimulus” the nation really needs.

As the states desperately try to pass legislation to protect themselves from the many potentially adverse effects of the President’s health care proposal, the federal government is working all the harder to make sure state governments do the heavy lifting for the bill’s funding.

According to a recent article by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, the amount of spending required for the new Medicaid package is so staggering, it requires state as well as federal funding. Southern states have tended to try to contain costs by keeping Medicare spending in check. The Obama administration is planning on forcing states to bring more dollars to the table.

The authors cite the following examples:

The impact may include political tones, since for many of the states represented by swing senators in the health care debate, the required increases in state spending are likely to be quite high, say Morris and McGann:

These increases in spending do not include the direct cost that will have to be carried by Americans in federal tax. This bill remains complicated and the extent of the financial injury it provides only grows daily.

Back in the Dark Ages, doctors were known for bleeding patients to reduce fever and cracking skulls to relieve headaches. Everything old is new again as the Obama Administration pursues excessive taxes on job creators on both Wall Street and Main Street in order to create new jobs.

Elizabeth MacDonald brings the Administration’s current efforts to light in a column at FoxBusiness.com. She points out that “A House bill now being drafted would raise $150 billion each year to pay for new manufacturing jobs by taxing securities transactions such as stocks, options, derivatives and futures…But the effect here would be the polar opposite-it would hurt job creation and even though Congress says they’ll exempt trades made for retirement savings, chances are slim that will happen, and the fees will get passed along. And jobs in the finance sector, already flattened, will fly overseas if the US is the only country with this taxing regime.”

MacDonald’s article points out the obvious. Politicians develop and implement policies as if we were trees. They believe we will take a tax, regulation, or other cost of doing business without blinking. Unfortunately for government, we are not trees. I do not know about you, but if someone attacks me with an axe I am either going to fight or take flight. That is the same thing that happens in public policy. When government attacks with a tax on job creation, that job creator is either going to fight (which in this country requires a long term strategy that includes changing the people in power) or they are going to run (which is much easier to do in our current political environment and our abilities thanks to technology).

Where and how do people run? We have many examples of this in recent years and the Internet makes it very easy for people to move their money and the rest of their lives, wherever they need to go to do business.

For example, a recent study from the Empire Center for New York State Policy is showing that the state is suffering from a similar fate. The authors of the studies — E.J. McMahon and Wendell Cox — point out that between the years 2000 and 2008 and following massive tax increases for those with higher incomes, the families that have been leaving have income levels that were 13 percent higher than those arriving to the Empire State. In Manhattan and the New York County area, the impact was even more profound. Those leaving the Big Apple had an average income of $93,264, which was approximately 28 percent higher than those who were arriving (which made $72,726 on average).

What is most ironic about these type of policies is that they not only fail to create jobs, but also fail to generate new revenues. They simply do not work. The old saying remains true, “the more you tax something, the less you get of it.” If you heavily tax job creators, you will lose them and the jobs they create. MacDonald believes that the bill being argued in this Congress will actually force some job creators out of the country. They, in turn would likely take the jobs with them. It is time to abandon ancient practices that do not work and pursue policies that simply make sense.

Conspiracy theorists have argued for years that government officials who support the massive regulation of industry in the name of environmentalism, do so in order to pursue even greater government control It is not about a cleaner environment, but a more powerful government. Meanwhile, scientists who have advocated Global Warming have often been accused of being professional “Chicken Littles,” who make a living predicting that the sky is falling. After all, if research studies had indicated that things were fine or temperature changes were cyclical, there would be no need for future research and the funding that comes with it. There is a business side to everything, including environmental research, and fear has proved to be a successful element in obtaining increased funding.

The media has been quick to defend those in government and science in the alarmist camp, creating a powerful and effective troika supporting an ambitious agenda. They have apologized for the many exaggerations and have gone to great lengths to defending the most outrageous of claims. The recent release of some rather incriminating emails are embarrassing to the media, scientists, and government officials behind the Global Warming movement. Forget embarrassing, the movement is now on life support.

The Wall Street Journal discusses the content and the implications of the emails in question, quoting several including one stating that “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

“So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to ‘Mike.’ Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU’s servers were hacked and messages among some of the world’s most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.”

“The ‘two MMs’ are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions-a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.”

The emails in question are in the thousands and the thread demonstrates a similar theme and are most enlightening. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to point out that “In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a ‘unified’ view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the ‘common cause’; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to ‘hide the decline’ of temperature in certain inconvenient data.”

In essence, the world has been duped by scientists driven by the desire of prestige and funding, politicians driven by a lust for control and power, and a media that makes a living by creating alarm. The cost of pursuing a battle plan against these false problems has cost countries like Spain millions of jobs in its “cap and trade” style legislation and countries through out Western Europe and the United States billions of dollars in regulations to date. What will these false prophets receive for their crimes against economies? Probably Pulitzers and Nobel prizess. What a strange world indeed.

What is amazing to me is how often people do NOT learn from history.  It can be recent or ancient, and they never learn.

A recent Rasmussen Poll says that a ‘Tea Party’ candidate beats Republicans in a national election, but still lose to the Democrats.  People are whipped up in a fury about the insane expansion of government and they are actually buying that a third party candidate could win.  Now let’s think about what the poll said.  A Tea Party candidate could beat the Republican, but not the Democrat.

Well, that’s all well and good if the Republican was the current incumbent and there was no such thing as a Democrat party.  Lets review some history.  In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt broke away from the Republicans to form the Progressive, or Bull Moose party.  The Republicans lost.  What was worse was that the Republican in the race, William Taft was already the incumbent.  It ushered in the beginning of the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a progressive liberal democrat who supported such things as eugenics and isolationism.  Great.

Woodrow Wilson carried 40 states.  Teddy Roosevelt carried 6 states and Taft carried two.  As expected, many Republicans broke off to follow Roosevelt, but their numbers were too small, and it ushered in a 435 electoral-vote landslide for Wilson.

Lets zoom ahead to 1992, shall we?  Conservative independent (some said progressive, but his fiscal policies were very conservative) Ross Perot ran as an independent against the Incumbent Republican George H.W. Bush, and Democrat Bill Clinton.  Clinton won with a popular vote of over 44 million.  Bush won just over 39 million, and Perot clocked in with nearly 20 million votes.  Examine that carefully.  Twenty million votes could have gone to Bush and easily put him over the top.  Perot did not carry a single state, but he bled enough votes away for Clinton to march to victory.

Conservatives vote for the candidate that they believe is more conservative.  If that doesn’t fall on a major party line, so be it.  Liberals overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat candidate, because they know it will win.  You have socialist party and green party candidates who throw their hat into the ring, but they can never garner strong support.  None of them ever even came CLOSE to getting nearly 20 million votes!!

We must come back to our senses, people.  First of all, there is no ‘Tea Party.’  The Tea Party groups have a de facto political leader, and her name is Sarah Palin.  But if Sarah Palin ran as a member of a third party, I would not support her, despite how much I admire her.  I know that conservatives will divide our numbers, and the Democrats will not.  This time around we do not even have the incumbent advantage.  It will be reminiscent of Reagan defeating Mondale, 49 to 1.

This is not what we want, and not what we need.  I have been to these tea parties.  I support them and find the people are all great people.  They have a great message.  Their fundamental flaw is that they would rather take down the whole system than hijack a party, just like the liberals did with the Democrats decades ago.  If Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney ran as a Republican, I think they would have a solid chance at beating President Obama.  You could run Jesus Christ as a third party candidate in this country and he would lose in a landslide.

If we as conservatives ever hope to stop the Democrats, we need to unite.  The Republican party is not going anywhere, and only if it did would there be room for a third party, which of course would then be the new second party.  We must not divide our numbers.  We must stand united.  Trust me, they want a third party.  The Democrats in power would love to see a Tea Party organize and run against the Republicans, because they sure as heck would not be running against the Democrats.  It would be no contest.  Trust me, that bitter reality makes me sick.

If someone like Palin or Romney would enter the race head on, nothing would make me happier.  As a Republican with tea party support, they could probably do it.  The Democrats are not exactly on any favorite lists of Americans, save those in NYC or LA.  The biggest flaw the Republican Party is making, is not embracing these outsiders.  We’ve had enough of Gingrich, boys.  Bring in Sarah.

United we can win it all.  If we divide our forces, we’ll end up dying by friendly fire.

I am pro-Palin. She brought a liveliness to the Republican Party at a time when it looked moribund because of the nomination of John McCain, whose feeble attempt at running for president put the party to sleep. However, not everyone on the Conservative/Libertarian non-pompous, non-country club wing of the party is on board.

Pat Conlon of Born Again Redneck is a blogger I consider a friend and comrade, but he doesn’t see the big hub-bub about Palin-mania. He’s also unhappy about very strong voices like Michelle Malkin or Glenn Beck demanding political purity from candidates.

I will disagree with Beck being an ideologue of the Right, as he tends to be more Libertarian than Conservative, and is pretty vocal about it both on his radio program and TV show. I’m for getting rid of the “country-clubbers” and have no problem throwing out the trash, but Pat is right in that there is a fair amount of horse-trading in politics. Negotiation is key. My preference is that we have people of a stronger Conservative bent doing the negotiating.

Cross-posted at RudyCarrera.com.

In addition to costing, at a minimum, approximately $1 trillion simply to launch President Obama’s ambitious plan towards socialized medicine, the current bill will also have a devastating impact on the quality of our nation’s health care.  In fact, I believe that passage of this bill will pave the way for a new Dark Ages in health care.

Thus far, the primary focus of this debate has centered on health care costs and providing coverage to the uninsured.  While American generosity and compassion are weighing in on the side of helping our fellow citizens without adequate health care insurance, it is worth pointing out that our “uninsured” are better cared for and protected than most European nations already practicing socialized medicine.  And while exercising restraint as far as health care costs are concerned, if this was a legitimate goal of reform then why not immediately correct the $60 billion of identified waste and abuse in Medicare, instead of using it as a method of paying for new reforms?  In reality, the notion of controlling or curbing rising heath care costs via this legislation is a red herring; these costs cannot be contained through government controls without sacrificing quality and instituting rationing of health care.  Period.

The United States remains the only major nation with any resemblance to market driven health care.  There is an impetus in US health care towards innovation that other countries simply do not enjoy; but they do reap the benefits from America;s innovation, research and development.  According to Glen Whitman, an associate professor of economics at California State University, Northridge and Raymond Raad, a resident in psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, the Cato Institute noted in a recent study that innovation should be the number one concern in the health care debate.  In the study, four categories of innovation are examined:  basic science; diagnostics; therapeutics; and business models.  They found that in the areas of basic science, diagnostics, and therapeutics the United States has made more positive contributions than any other country, and in some cases, more than all other countries combined.  In the category of business models, the researchers lacked the data needed to make a final determination.

However, what no one is able to refute, is that other countries with socialized health care have their own significant problems in the area of business models. In these countries, government bureaucracy has replaced business bureaucracy.  How is that better?  Government’s involvement in the “business” of health care is the primary reason for the inefficiencies in other country’s socialized heath care systems; arguably the same is already true of our own.

If this administration was serious about improving our system, it would explore ways of reducing the role of government and increasing the role of the free market in the business of health care.  According to the authors of the Cato report – and most clear thinking Americans – our health care system, though far from perfect with its rising costs and inefficiencies, has undeniably and without equal, provided the greatest innovations in health care for its patients.  This includes the quick adoption and broad use of new treatments and technologies, which in turn create an incentive to develop those techniques in the first place.

When the American people “subsidize” medical innovation through higher costs, the whole world benefits; that is a virtue of the American system that is not reflected in comparative life expectancy and mortality statistics, and one not so much as even acknowledged by our current administration and in this current debate.  In a sane world, other countries would rise up in urgency and anger to protest the health care proposals before the Congress, denouncing the administration’s intent to drastically and irrevocably damage the greatest health care system in the world, and to squash the innovation inherent in our system from which other countries benefit and should be grateful.

Medical treatments must be invented and perfected before costs can be reduced and their benefits extended to everyone.  Innovation is critical.  If the incentive for innovation is not there, everyone – most especially those who are touted as being the biggest beneficiaries of socialized medicine – will suffer.  Innovation has had virtually no role in the current health care debate showing the myopia of the supporters of socialized health care. They too will find themselves suffering from the lack of options and rationing that are common in socialized systems where the free market is shackled or excluded.

For more information I suggest Glen Whitman and Raymond Raad, “Bending the Productivity Curve: Why America Leads the World in Medical Innovation,” Cato Institute, November 18, 2009.

There once was a time in America when drafting contests were held to judge who wrote beyond compare about America. During one such competition in 1917, a man named William Tyler Page won the contest with “The American Creed.” A creed is a system, a doctrine, an oath, an article of faith, as well as a summarization of one’s overarching ideological beliefs. Individuals who stand by the American Creed base their identity on its core values; more importantly, our creed codifies individuals within our country as members of a nation of people who identify themselves—despite trivial differences and minutiae—as Americans; something greater than themselves. If you live in the United States of America, and identify yourself as an American, it will be impossible to avoid shivers and goose bumps while reading the American Creed; those uncontrollable sensations that remind you of your morality and mortality. Breathe it in my Brothers and Sisters, and take heart:

“I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”

Did you feel that? I hope so.

In merely one hundred words – a feat in itself – William Tyler Page powerfully summarized both the American political tradition and the responsibilities of every citizen to his or her government. The American Creed uses passages and phrases from America’s Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Daniel Webster’s reply to Robert Y. Hayne in the Senate in 1830. When Page was asked about what he had written, he said that, “It is the summary of the fundamental principles of the American political faith as set forth in its greatest documents, its worthiest traditions, and its greatest leaders.”

Being an American has a different meaning for every person. What does it mean to be an American? Well, first and most obvious, by being naturally born in America you are an American. However, that definition is a mere label, not an explanation of the deeper substance of being an American. For me, it means so much more than simply being born here. I believe that due to America’s prosperity in the twentieth-century, people have lost the deeper understanding of being an American. We are – individually and collectively – above all else, free. As Americans we are masters of our own destiny within the limits of our own laws; nothing can be forced upon us, so long as we remember that we are the “force” in our country, and never relinquish that position. There is enormous value in our unique brand of freedom where every American is ascribed worth, and where no single man is set above his fellow countrymen or our laws. We are “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Further, according to our founding fathers our rights and freedom come not from man, but are given to us providentially – therefore man has no jurisdiction over them.

The American Creed is something we can believe in, something we should believe in, more so now than ever before. The mantra of “change we can believe in” has eroded like ancient hieroglyphs, for which the key to interpretation is now lost. During the presidential campaign, this phrase was thought to be clearly understood, easily decipherable and even accepted as sound doctrine within the context of the emotion and historic nature of those months leading to and immediately following Barak Obama’s election. However, our American Creed is lasting. It is cemented into the very soil of our country, not merely the temporary banner touting the slogan of the day, flapping in the breeze. It is an oath – a covenant – that allows the citizens of this great nation a long range and accurate view of history and our future. Without its perspective, we’re forced to live in the moment with no ties to the past and limited or – even worse – distorted vision of our future. Our nation’s momentum, accelerated during the last election cycle, has lost the necessary grounding provided by its foundations. How can we – as Americans – move forward without this perspective and without being anchored in the principles and truths described in our American Creed? America does not need the kind of “change” it is undergoing today; it requires the steadfast belief and adherence to these principles and truths that have made our nation great.

This present generation of Americans has tolerated and even accepted the fleeting and the shallow phrases and promises of the current administration. In our fast-paced, instant download, microwaveable culture, perhaps it was inevitable that someone would capitalize on the desire for something new, fast and flashy. Contrast today’s instant gratification, buy-it-now-on-credit culture with that of our work-hard, save and live-within-your-means culture of our grandparents and great grandparents. Is it any wonder that so many of us were drawn to the quick-fix, sounds-great-on-a-bumper-sticker, highly marketed microwavable candidate Obama? But now…now that we’ve clearly seen that the goods we purchased are simply cheap foreign-made trinkets, will we stand idly by while the early predictions of Democracy’s failure come to fruition? Will we tolerate the very failure – a word which should not exist in any Americans ready vocabulary – of America? For me, the answer is, “not on my watch!”

The Sophist, Gorgias, founder of classic rhetorical theory said that, “If everyone, on every subject, had memory of the past and knowledge of the present and foresight of the future, speech would not do what it does; but as things are, it is easy neither to remember the past nor to consider the present nor to predict the future; so that on most subjects most people take opinion as counselor to the soul.” If there exists anywhere in literature a more relevant insight in today’s environment, I’ve yet to find it. The foundations of rhetoric have not lost their efficacy in over 2,000 years; will we allow the foundations of America lose theirs in less than 300? Has the very beating of our nation’s heart, as explained in the American Creed, been stopped by the charismatic, flashy rhetorical phrases of the last election, and our current President? Perhaps so, but persuasion is only effective when an audience is willing to accept “change.” I am convinced that this willingness was but for a season, and the leaves have already begun to fall off of the tree of “Hope and Change.” It is now time to remember, rekindle and recommit to the truth, the honor and the responsibility of being an American today, to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

By Jesse Allan Hackstaff