Gerard Baker has a piece in the UK Times Online today that caught my attention (read it here). His thesis is one that seems to be gaining momentum as Election Day looms, one that posits that this center-right country will keep a far left president and Congress in line should Obama win. This is an argument intended to allay the worst fears of conservatives and moderates who see an Obama administration as a disaster for this country. In essence, it is an attempt to lead us “dumb and silent” to the slaughter, as Washington once said. I reject it wholeheartedly.

Baker offers that the tightness of this election signals that this country remains fundamentally conservative and is not completely sold on Obama’s brand of liberal governance. On this point, I heartily agree. But the conclusions he draws from this fact are deluded and ignore important elements of history. He seems to think that a unified Democrat government will be hamstrung by the public’s core conservatism and will stay on the well-worn path of mainstream American politics in order to keep their seats. First of all, this argument rings of hope (there’s the H-word again) rather than conviction. Secondly, it does not recall the reaction of Democrats to their re-taking of Congress in 2006, who saw that election as a referendum on the Iraq War and a mandate in their favor. How wrong they were, but it didn’t impact their left-wing agenda in the slightest. Fortunately, the Republicans held on to enough seats in Congress to block their attempts to cut off funding for the troops and a Republican president sat in the White House to veto any of the bilge that managed to get by. That will not be the case this time around. The Democrats will once again herald this as a mandate from the masses for liberalism and they will govern accordingly (if you don't believe me, see

Additionally, this sort of wishful thinking is foolish if the intent is to placate conservatives. Even if the Democrat Congressional majority is whittled down or shattered in 2010, much of the damage will have been done, as the Democrats will understand they may be living on borrowed time. They won’t squander this opportunity. Iraq War funding can be cut and troops brought home prematurely with nothing to stand in the way this time, and could happen within months, not years, of when a President Obama takes office. Health care reform is likely to be undertaken immediately after the lessons learned from the Clinton failures in the 90’s (Ted Kennedy is drafting the legislation as we speak). The Fairness Doctrine could sail through Congress and land on Obama’s desk with ease, and he’ll sign it. The revision of the tax code may take longer, which is the only silver lining I can see in this potential maelstrom. If Obama has the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court justices within his first two years, he can pick whoever he wants within the left-wing spectrum (even Hillary Clinton) and have a 99% chance of getting them confirmed. Most pundits speculate the next president will appoint two or even three justices. This would tilt the balance of power to the liberals on the Court for a generation and cause immense and irreparable damage to the fabric of this country.
Another advantage the Democrats hold is their control of the economic narrative, which an electoral victory will validate. Once the premise that conservatism is the cause of our current economic woes is established, they can justify whatever socialist policies they like. They won't get away with it every time, but even once is too much. Through the newly established powers granted to the Treasury Secretary by the Bailout (which will be the cornerstone of the American nationalization/socialization movement for decades to come), Obama would be able to extend the influence of government willy-nilly into the private sector. It would be very bleak indeed.

Do not be deluded: a unified, Democrat government is very bad news for America. Will life go on? Of course it will. But you may not recognize your country four years from now.




There have been many goings-on this election season that have defied my formidable powers of comprehension. Nearly all of them are tied to the tremendous amount of support that Barack Obama has managed to gather in his historic (not due to race, but to the extremism of his views) quest for the presidency. I understand, of course, that there is a surge of discontent with the Bush administration in this country that I myself sympathize with in many ways. For some voters, the decision this year has become oversimplified: vote for Obama, he’s not Bush. However, the overwhelming desire to punish the outgoing Bush administration (which isn’t running for re-election, by the way) and the corresponding oversimplification of the election have conspired to rob Americans of their senses, priorities and moral compasses. They have led to one of the most wacked-out phenomena in politics: the compartmentalization of morality.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more prominent this year than in the Christian community, particularly Catholics (see
here). Catholics, who by the dictates of their faith are (or should be) the most ardently pro-life demographic in the country, are currently split just about down the middle in their support for Senator Obama versus Senator McCain. Just to be clear, Senator Obama has the most radical voting record on abortion in the US Senate. He has consistently opposed a partial-birth abortion ban, though he’ll tell you it was because there was never a sufficient allowance for the “health” of the mother (which is a liberal canard that has been debunked repeatedly due to its ambiguous nature) and was an ardent opponent of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while in the Illinois State Senate on the grounds that it would undermine Roe v. Wade. If you have any doubts about the necessity of this Act, which was passed unanimously at the federal level in exactly the same form in 2002, read this (warning: this is grotesque to the point of intolerability, especially for anyone that is a parent). He is a strong proponent of not only teaching but providing contraception as part of sex education in public schools. If I’m not much mistaken, this would put him on the wrong side of THE big issues for Catholics. And yet they seem to be rallying to him in droves.

For a vivid and stupefying illustration of what I’m talking about, you might try reading
this NPR article on the subject. In it, prominent Catholics discuss their attraction to Senator Obama, and in the process perform an awkward moral contortionist act that defies reason. Doug Kmiec, for example, is an ardent Pro-Lifer who served in both the Reagan and George HW Bush administrations. He says that his conversion to Obama discipleship came when he heard the Democrat’s views on health care, wages, immigration and war, to name a few. I find this strange, of course, as Obama’s views on these issues are pretty much in line with those espoused by the Democrats that opposed the Reagan and Bush administrations in the 80’s and 90’s. But ignoring that, one wonders how an anti-abortion Republican reconciles his support for a fervently Pro-Choice liberal Democrat. According to the NPR article, Kmiec “decided that Obama’s plan to reduce abortions was better than the Republicans’ failed attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade.” You see the source of my exasperation now, I think. Does it make any sense at all for a man who views the practice of abortion as an act of murder to vote for a candidate that would happily appoint Supreme Court justices to uphold the decision that spawned that very practice over a candidate who would appoint justices to oppose it? No, it does not. But I guarantee you, he is not alone.

How does this happen? How do Americans become so enchanted with a politician that they surrender their morality, or at least wall it off so that its shouts of protestation don’t grow too distracting? I have no simple answers. It seems clear, however, that the cult of personality remains alive and well in politics, and continues to claim victims among the intellectually weaker segments of the American electorate.





In such times as these, with an election imminent that promises to unveil a future so terribly unlike our past, it is easy for Americans to lose their way. We have at times seen our country as what she is now rather than what she has always been and what she should be. We are today caught in the confluence of contemporary trends and carried along by its current, heavily buffeted by the rhetoric of two competing ideologies. We have to grab hold of something, and give reason and reflection a precious moment to sink in before we take our country down a path from which it can hardly return without too much self-inflicted harm. In order to understand where our country should go, we of course have to consider where it has been and, most importantly, from whence it came. In this spirit, I offer up the words of our venerated Founders to help us cut through the din and cacophony of electioneering and shameless politics. These are the men who literally made America with their words and blood. They constructed a system of government that is a model for eternal success, a success attested to with its modern-day survival, though it bears the scars and bruises of over two hundred years of tragedy and triumph. The words speak for themselves, and our history is their context. Consider this part of America: The Owner's Manual.

As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. As long as Marriage exists, Knowledge, Property and Influence will accumulate in Families.
-John Adams

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
-John Adams

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.
-John Adams

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
-Thomas Jefferson

Excessive taxation will carry reason & reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election.
-Thomas Jefferson

Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!
-Thomas Jefferson

When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.
-Thomas Jefferson

If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.
-Thomas Paine

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
-Thomas Paine

The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.
-Thomas Paine

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.
-James Madison

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
-James Madison

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
-James Madison

America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.
-James Madison

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.
-James Madison

I own myself the friend to a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a truth, that commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive and impolitic — it is also a truth, that if industry and labour are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out.
-James Madison

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
-James Madison

What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing! I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal & fallacious!
-George Washington

It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.
-George Washington
No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass.
-George Washington




One of the critical elements to the Obama campaign’s success up to this point has been its masquerading of the most liberal man in the US Senate as a centrist tax-cutter. They have applied Tax Break For Those Earning Less Than $250K™ brand lipstick to their pig and paraded him from state to state and talk show to talk show to tumultuous cheers and lustful catcalls from blue-state, working class voters. This is not a new strategy for Democrats, who have always had to surreptitiously sneak to the center in the general election. That Barack Obama seems to have pulled it off is saying something, however, considering how far he tip-toed from the Left to get there without getting caught. As has happened often in this nation’s electoral history (Jimmy Carter pops to mind), disenchantment with the sitting administration has led many to cover their eyes and ears, voting more out of blind hope (Obama’s particular brand of “hope”) than good old-fashioned American common sense.

So let’s tear off the blinders and use a little bit of that common sense, shall we? Let’s talk about Obama’s plan to shower tax breaks on the “middle class” and soak the “rich” with the bill. Thanks to a vigilant citizen, Joe the Plumber, this plan has been exposed for what it really is: income redistribution, or socialism. But it’s much worse than that. It’s also a formula for inflation and joblessness in the face of an oncoming recession. Senator Obama has been able to divert a lot of attention away from the real issue with his $250K cutoff dog and pony show. He’s rolled out arbitrary figures, arguing that the 95% of Americans who make less than that $250K figure will get a tax break, while the other 5% will do their “patriotic duty” and shoulder a much heavier tax burden. The central theme of his tax plan is the standard Democrat tactic of class warfare. Obama will be President Robin Hood, robbing from the rich to give to the poor (or middle class, whatever…). But Senator McCain hit the nail right on the head when he asked in the final debate, “Why would you raise anyone’s taxes right now?”

While lower and middle class Americans may sometimes take secret delight in seeing the wealthy get punished out of our primeval sense of jealousy, we need the rich and the upper class and the businesses they run. When presented with Obama’s tax plan, most Americans think that because they don’t make over $250K they’ll come out ahead, and who cares about the people that do? But the fact is that the "people that do" provide us with jobs, goods and services, advances in technology and science, and a multitude of other things fundamental to our national economic health. When they pay more in taxes, they will not and cannot absorb the added cost themselves. They will do one of five things: fail and close up shop, move their business overseas, increase the price of the goods and services they provide to the consumer, reduce wages and benefits for their employees, or layoff their employees. Who suffers as a result of any of these five things? Why, the lower and middle class, that’s who (do a mental exercise and think: does your employer make over $250K?). And usually this just contributes to a period of inflation and recession. But during a period of inflation and recession, this is an absolute disaster. What will Barack Obama do once the dominoes start falling and poverty and joblessness are on the rise? Blame the Republicans? Blame the rich and corporate America? How useful is that to you? I suppose the poor and jobless will at least have their government furnished health care, so perhaps we’ll have the healthiest poor in the world, for whatever it’s worth.

How is it that Senator Obama is somehow perceived as better on the economy? Simply because he’s not a Republican? For some voters, that’s all they need to know. While I sympathize with their reasoning, I’ll have no pity for them if they get what they want but don’t want what they get. Bottom line: Senator McCain has it right. Don’t raise anyone’s taxes right now, even the Satanic, puppy-hating rich.



It is no secret, and we have talked about it a great deal here at News! On The March, that the mainstream media has sold its very soul (withered and black as it is) to the Democratic Party. As much as conservatives have frothed at the mouth over pervasive media bias in the past, the selective reporting has reached, unhindered, critical mass in the 2008 election. From the displacing of blame for the subprime mortgage mess from the indisputably culpable Democrats to the Republican scapegoats, to the white-washing of Obama’s deep ties to ACORN, the serial perpetrators of widespread voter registration fraud, tales of their journalistic malpractice abound. Their exploits are so despicable that Orson Scott Card, for whom the label "liberal Democrat" hardly seems adequate, wrote a blistering article today that takes the news media to task, an indictment that reads like your standard National Review fare. His recognition of the media’s agenda should be considered the high-water mark in the conservative battle to expose said prejudices. Nevertheless, it is likely that the mainstream news media will not suffer for their role as a sycophantic toady of the Democratic Party. That is, unless, they wake up on November 5th and are handed this lead story: John McCain Defeats Barack Obama.

Just as the two-fold Reagan victories gave birth to the “Era of Limbaugh” and conservative talk radio, so too did eight years of Bush bolster the ascent of Fox News and the “new media.” So where would a McCain victory leave the mainstream media? With any luck, it would bankrupt the bastards. Or at least teach them a valuable lesson about the limits of their reach and influence. The last four years have seen a slow bleeding in the revenues of such journalistic touchstones as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others and forced them into massive layoffs and widespread outsourcing (for the results of said outsourcing, see this
article). Broadcast news organizations such as NBC and CBS have suffered greatly in the ratings for their flagrant liberal agenda, from the public shaming of Dan Rather to the antics of Katie Couric and her MSNBC brethren, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. A McCain victory would be a repudiation of that agenda by the American public, furthering their downward spiral and, however unlikely, force them to rethink their role. With any luck, we’ll see C-SPAN emerge as the top dog in news.

But let us look at the other side of the story (something the mainstream media is incapable of doing) and consider the fate of Obama’s accomplices should he march to victory. The payoff will of course be huge. Obama would likely allow the return of the
Fairness Doctrine, an FCC policy that requires broadcasters to allow equal time to present opposing views to their own. Broadcasts would be arbitrarily regulated by a commission of political appointees that could change depending on who sits in the White House. Reagan rightly saw to it that this federally mandated infringement upon free speech was put to an end during his administration, which has allowed the alternative media to flourish and given conservative commentators a voice. If Obama succeeds in resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine (and with a Democratic Congress he will) it will no longer be profitable for radio stations to carry conservative talk shows. This is music to the mainstream media’s ears and is the answer to their financial woes, amounting to nothing short of a news monopoly along the lines of what they enjoyed in the 60’s and 70’s, but without the crappy neckties. By federal fiat, the conservative and libertarian voice would be punishable by fine. I doubt that you’ll find a more fitting example of how far modern journalism has sprinted from the First Amendment than that.

The bottom line: the fate of the mainstream media, much to their disgust, rests in our hands (and rightly so!). I humbly suggest that on November 4th, we squeeze some sense into them.




As Election Day rapidly approaches, the media and the Obama campaign continue to frantically beat us over the head with their prediction: Obama’s got this thing in the bag. Indeed, polls continue to show Obama with a lead over McCain, ranging from 10 points to as little as 4 points. These same polls offer a similarly gloomy Electoral College map. Obama netted another huge sponsor on Sunday: General Colin Powell. He has shattered the record for presidential fund raising contributions, pulling in a staggering $150 million, and he’s spending it as fast as he’s making it. These mountainous obstacles are daunting, I know, and things may look bleak. But take heart: Obama hasn’t been elected president yet, and as John McCain rightly declared in his Convention speech, “nothing is inevitable here.”

The press has embarrassed themselves more times that they would care to remember by forecasting a winner, only to be overridden when the electorate (read: peasantry) had the audacity to disagree. The most recent example would be when they called the New Hampshire primary for Barack Obama, only to get a Hillary Clinton victory crammed down their throats by the voters. And that “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline still stands as a monument to the media’s insatiable thirst to be the “first to call it,” usually to their own detriment.

But we have to recognize that there is another motive here, one that is just as likely to backfire on the press as the “first to call it” syndrome. There can be no doubt that the mainstream media is bought and paid for by the Obama campaign, quite literally now that Senator Obama has purchased a half-hour block of broadcast time on NBC and CBS for October 29th. It is in their interest to use their considerable influence to promote the impression of a landslide-in-the-making for their candidate, and to attempt to discourage would-be McCain supporters. They hope that by doing so they’ll suppress Republican voter turnout. And to a large extent they are succeeding, as conservative commentators like Peggy Noonan begin to jump ship one by one, engaging in a premature blame-game in their own perverse attempts to be the “first to call it.” Some contributors to this very blog have already begun to give up hope.

This scheme carries with it certain risks, however, and misjudges the target audience. Republicans have historically been better at turning out the vote than Democrats. And when the media tells a Republican voter than Barack Obama is marching to an inevitable victory, that Republican voter is going to get to the polls come hell or high water on Election Day, and he’s going to haul along three or four of his Republican friends or family members too. Because for those of us who understand the implications of an Obama administration with a complicit, liberal Congress, an Obama victory is simply unacceptable. Even Obama spokesman Bill Burton seems to understand the potential backlash and has urged the media to back off in its pompous and pontificating prognostications (that’s alliteration, kids), saying, “I don't think it's particularly helpful, and the people who are making these pronouncements are ignoring recent history that have shown very close results. This is a closely divided electorate, and we expect that nationally and in battleground states this race is going to go down to the wire."

It is also telling (and I have said it repeatedly in previous articles) that in an election year that should overwhelmingly favor Democrats, Barack Obama is only leading by the single digits in most polls. I still believe that Obama’s lead is due more to a lack of finesse and salesmanship on McCain’s part than anything else. By all rights, he should be trailing. I say that because, as rightly or wrongly angered the American public may be at the Republicans, this remains a center-right country where talk of “spreading the wealth” and engaging in diplomacy that legitimizes terrorist dictators is indigestible (see "Silent Majority"). Obama has not been able to put this thing to bed and many Americans remain unconvinced that he is the sort of change they’re looking for. Joe the Plumber is emblematic of that, and by his words and very existence he has managed to make a better case for conservative government than the unfortunately meandering McCain campaign.

So don’t give up hope people. As the eminent thinker Yogi Berra once wisely said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” But for God’s sake, get out and vote.



I have this theory, not a popular one: The experiment that was America failed in the first Great Depression, but not for the reasons you think. You see, it wasn't the wholesale handing-over of American liberty and opportunity that did us in. No, it was the end of the golden age of immigration.

Bear with me.

America, for centuries, even before its founding, was a land of opportunity for those brave enough and smart enough to make something of it. Now, of course, that meant there were plenty of knaves and thieves, and even the most principled of men had to have a streak of pragmatism – but it was a fine dream. Sure, there were powdered-wig fops sitting in their tea houses along the coast the whole time, but they were not the lifeblood of the country, and those that proved most instrumental in the country's founding were also driven by courage and a spirit of innovation. Then, the Golden Rule of America was you win or you die. The harsh realities of the West, the rat race of city life, the scarcity of real wealth – all these things honed the American Spirit into a blade stronger than the finest Damascus steel. With it we turned away all challengers, expanded the possibilities of humankind, and stood as the Shining City on the Hill that we were ever envisioned to be.

But in the 1930's something changed. No longer was there fierce social Darwinism and a spirit of ruthless self-preservation tempered with Christian morals. Instead, there was a sense of entitlement, born perhaps from the fertile loins of compassion in the face of misery, but it grew all the same. Everyone, suddenly, deserved not the dream of American potential, but the reality of American success. The American Dream was no longer to scrape and toil so that your children might learn the value of a dollar and hard work, and maybe even inherit a bit. Instead the American Dream became a home and a dog and a pipe by the fire with an engaging radio drama to brighten the evening hours. Fortunately for America, the generation faced with the crisis of the 20th century still knew the value of hard work and doing much with little. The generations faced with the crisis of today, I fear, do not know these things.

The irony of it all is that we are faced with a new wave of immigration that could promise to vastly improve the American character. A new group of hardworking Christians who believe in the original American Dream are invading en-masse, and we have the arrogance to complain when they bring down property values. Now, I am not advocating illegal immigration by any means, but rather use this to point to the backwards, decadent sense of entitlement that has poisoned America. I fear I am not wrong.

End of Theory, Change of Gears:

This is precisely why Obama wins on economic issues when he really never should. McCain could, theoretically, have deftly and simply stated a few realities about high taxes and mandated prices, and how both result in higher overall prices, layoffs, and reduction in supply of essential services. These theories are not challenging - most elementary students could be made to understand them easily. The problem? We don't want to hear it, and the Soft Fascists know it. Unfortunately, the Soft Socialists have a solid corner on the class-warfare market, and they have played it to the hilt. They know, and by “they” I mean the disingenuous, hateful, elitist ones that set policy, not the daft parrots who repeat their overlords' ideologies. Too much of the population has been here too long. Anyone born into America faces an uphill battle in learning to appreciate what is really available here and nowhere else. Thus, we have lost, in large part, the belief that rights are to be earned by fighting tooth and nail for them. Rather, we believe now in entitlements to be doled out according to need. Indeed, what Biden so recently called “basic fairness” is really a not-so-subtle rehashing of the old Communist ideals – but we know this, I will no longer belabor the point.

What then, is the solution? How do we claw our way back out from under the oppressive malaise that rests atop our national spirit like a pulsing, putrid tumor? The cynic in me says there isn't one. Kiss your country goodbye, because it's over. Either we go to war with the overlords (and a great many of our fellow citizens) or we give up. Perhaps it will be possible to fight the good fight undercover, but if that is to be the case we will need an agenda as wide-reaching and far-sighted as that of the Socialists who have finally, after a century of struggle, won the country. I, for one, would rather not suffer under their regime in the hopes that once their plans fail, there will be enough like-minded youth left to step into the fold and usher in a new era of Libertarian Prosperity.

The optimist in me says that the real Libertarians - the Federalists and Economic Conservatives – will be able to raise their voices above the din, and that the three-party system I envision will truly come to pass. And that with it, the radicals will be marginalized and the remainder, embittered by years of suffering under the Socialists, will be ready to hear their message. But right now, the likes of Ron Paul are laughed off the national stage – and while the crazy factor might be a bit high in his camp, it's sad that the fundamental truths of individualism and federalism weren't better received when he put them forth long months ago. When Obama wins, and I believe he will (pray I am wrong), all we can do is hunker down, pour our money into tax-deferred vehicles to the greatest extent possible (if he leaves such options intact), and continue to put forth the plaintive call for real reform in the form of a simultaneous vote of no confidence in every elected leader. The approval poll numbers would suggest the country is ripe for it. Too bad we're actually mad about losing our entitlements, and not our liberties.



"Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
-Prime Minister Winston Churchill to Harrow School, October 1941
As those of you who know me are already aware (and those that don’t might easily surmise), the above is one of my favorite historical quotations. I can honestly say repetition of the mantra, internally and vocally, has gotten me through some difficult times. And so it saddens me when I see those whom I believe would have benefited from the gnomic throw in the proverbial towel not to convictions of honor and good sense, but in spite of these virtues. Such is how I read Christopher Buckley’s grudging endorsement of Barack Obama.

To sum up Buckley’s sentiment, he states his once ardent desire to see a man “like John McCain” in the Whitehouse has been weathered by the harsh politics which have surrounded the final days of this (and every) presidential campaign. He feels this has turned the once sapient soldier “inauthentic”. In Obama, Buckley writes, he sees “a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect”, and qualifies his decision to endorse Obama on the tenant that said intellect will choose to abandon the very leftist ideals which define the man and contrast so starkly with Buckley’s own convictions and ideology.

In essence he has embraced the concept of “change for change's sake” that I believe has become an alluring distraction for many. He feels his beliefs, his mind, his own analysis of life, learning and personal experience that have over the course of time forged his worldview have come up lacking in these troubled times, and has so abandoned them for the notion that a “young well tempered intellectual” knows better and will guide him through it. I admit that I too have found the terrible fiscal policy of the last 8 years, subsequent interminable presidential campaign, garnished with a last minute economic upheaval, quite exhausting. I do not, however, close my eyes and wish it all away – it isn’t that easy.

Now is not a time to forsake the ideals which have allowed our people to make this country, and the rest of the world, a better place; to throw the reigns to the other guy because those who profess to represent us in Washington have disenfranchised us. Instead, this must be a time to stand up and reshape our government. The parties which rule us no longer hold our interests at heart, but have become their own beasts, fainéant and self serving. In this election, like the last, I find myself once again not voting for a candidate, but against an ideology I find dangerous and destructive. It is sad, but necessary. Mr. Buckley disagrees, and believes the way to punish those who have failed to represent his views to is to endorse those who don’t. That is folly. That is giving in.
We must face the harsh reality that we cannot find a perfect representation of our ideals in a candidate. Still, we are called to a common cause, conservatives, libertarians, independents, moderates, to make this year a referendum against an oppressive radical left ideology we know to be wrong. Defeatism has no place in America – if you find you cannot stand behind a man this election, stand behind your convictions, and stand against oppression.


Welcome to our Bubble Wrap Republic, a place where citizens are lovingly insulated from the panic-inducing responsibilities of citizenship by their benevolent Government. This long-awaited transition has come to pass after centuries of hand-wringing on the part of individual Americans, who have been callously overburdened with difficult decisions and accountability for their actions. In this brave new world, your paternal Government has selflessly taken this cross from you and shouldered it Themselves. O, Blessed Government! Blessed Savior!

Sadly, there was a time when Government was caged and limited, a Dark Age in which we toiled under the whip of self-determination and personal responsibility. In those days, Government did not offer solutions to our problems due to antiquated ideas about the meaning of liberty. These old, laughable ideas have been wisely cast upon the ash-heap of history along with the flat earty theory, fascism, and capitalism. The power of Government has been unleashed like the splitting of the atom, Its full potential is being realized at last.
We as a nation can now enjoy true Freedom: Freedom from Accountability, Freedom from Inconvenience, Freedom from Decision, and most precious of all, Freedom from Vigilance. With these new cornerstones of democracy firmly set in place, we Americans can concentrate without distraction on the things that matter most, things like reality TV, Hollywood gossip, video games, and binge drinking. Leave everything else to our omniscient Government, made up of wise and caring people who have made the administration of the nation Their life’s work. These Heroes of the Republic are, after all, far more learned than we are, having spent most of Their adult life in Government. They know the ins and outs of Its operation and understand Its language, whereas words like “recession” and “deficit” aren’t part of our everyday vocabulary. Hail Government!

Gone are the days of economic hard times, class division and sacrifice. We have been given the future to which we are entitled. We will long remember the courageous Bailout of 2008, in which the Government thrust Itself in the path of a crippling depression and stopped it in its tracks, saving us all from joblessness and poverty, and rescuing us from the consequences of our appetite for easy credit and economically unviable home ownership. Thanks to our Government’s bravery, we can resume these pursuits once again!

Likewise, we have been beaten down by the sinister and greedy private health care system. No more. Government will crush them, protecting our God-given right to free health care by providing a system of Their own. All They ask in return is for those of us who have subsidized the decadent health care industry by purchasing coverage to pitch in and pay for those who have not. A just and fair system, if ever there was one.

There is nothing that our mighty Government cannot do. They ask only that we stand clear while They break down the walls of injustice that have hemmed us in these many years. We stand in awe and wonder what form of oppression Government will tackle next. Need we toil and break our backs for a daily wage any longer? Why not have our living come from the Government, and trade the edicts of our current boss for Its gentle, unimposing charity? If Government can achieve this, and It surely can, then It could most certainly provide us all with free and equitable housing. Perhaps Government can abolish the distraction of suffrage and relieve us of the responsibility of voting. Why be bothered by learning the issues, studying the candidates and rendering judgment? Government knows the issues, and is in a better position to select those most suitable to administer our well-being.

Almighty Government, The Solution, has indeed saved us. Long Live Our Bubble Wrap Republic!




Russia is test-firing missiles designed to destroy enemy anti-missile defense systems, the latest round of which Russian President Dmitri Medvedev attended personally on Sunday (see article here). This is yet another escalation, albeit not quite as dramatic as, say, the invasion of Georgia, that signals Russia’s intent to antagonize the West and expand its influence through the use of naked force. The weapons system that Medvedev observed tested is the Russian answer to the very anti-missile defense system that the United States is planning on deploying to various Eastern European NATO countries, such as Poland, a plan that the Russians have loudly opposed. The message seems aimed more at those countries that the United States, however, and is intended to convey three things. First, the missile tests are meant to demonstrate that the anti-missile defense systems do not make these former Soviet satellite states invulnerable to Russian aggression. Second, the Russians want to continue to appear bellicose to these countries in order to bring them to a panic-induced simmer. And finally, they hope to make Poland et al wonder, in light of Items 1 and 2, if NATO really has the onions to go to war with Russia over them. The slow and to date impotent NATO handling of the Georgian crisis, of course, is already part of the equation as well, and should add to these countries’ worries.

Of course, one has to consider what this escalation reveals about the Russians. For one, it shows that they have committed to a policy of brinksmanship, in which they will engage in gradually more threatening rhetoric and behavior until their demands are met. Obviously, it also shows that this is a game they think they can win. Indeed, their pieces are arrayed on the chessboard in such a way that they may well be right. Russian support of the Iranian regime by way of weapons sales and assistance with/political cover for their nuclear program is such that they could make a great deal of trouble for the West in that region if they felt so inclined. If Medvedev (read: Putin) feels that the time to make his bed has come, Russia could issue endless vetoes in the Security Council against Western measures, a tactic that they have readily engaged in since the end of the Cold War.

So what do the Russians want? I suppose the best way to answer that question is by asking what they don’t want. They don’t want functional, free market democracies on their borders. They don’t want a further expansion of NATO. They don’t want the West accessing alternate sources of oil or influencing geographic regions critical to their own oil supply. And they don’t want to continue to be seen as a poor, decrepit shell of what was once the mighty Soviet Union. This leads us to the fundamental question that foreign policy gurus are wracking their brains over as we speak: what will the Russians do to stop these things from happening? Will they, for instance, attack the anti-missile defense systems in Poland or the Czech Republic? Would they attack Ukraine? Or are they simply content to hold Georgia hostage until the West makes certain concessions, such as a pledge to halt the expansion of NATO, forfeit the implementation of these defense systems in Eastern Europe, or allow Georgian President Saakashvili’s removal? With American forces tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the political will to engage in hostilities with the former Soviet Union seems flimsy. But caving in to any of the likely Russian demands would be a disaster.

Like everything else, the outcome depends entirely on the presidential election on November 4th. An Obama administration would likely greet Russian demands with far more warmth than a McCain administration would, and would perhaps see a trade as more beneficial in the short run for staving off conflict. But this would of course be folly. Apart from being a text-book case of appeasement (literally taken right out of the Cuban Missile Crisis playbook; just substitute Warsaw for West Berlin), it would also allow the reemergence of a challenger to American hegemony that is in bed with state sponsors of terrorism and lead to the unraveling of NATO. Western, and specifically American promises would become worthless. Countries in hotbed regions around the world that were perhaps on track to undergo democratic reforms in exchange for American aid would once again be given a choice between East and West; and all they’d have to do for Eastern aid is sign on the dotted line and spit on America, no complicated conditions with tit for tat demands for difficult changes. While Senators McCain and Obama may both claim that there will be no return to Cold War conditions, if America acts irresponsibly things could quickly revert to form.

The right answer is to call Russia’s bluff at every turn and hold her to account. You don’t want missiles in Poland? Then do something about it. You want to invade a democratic neighbor? Well you’ll have a hard time holding them down when armed Western troops arrive to deliver aid. You want to stubbornly veto critical sanctions and resolutions in the Security Council? The charter was due for a change anyway, perhaps you’d like to watch the proceedings from the gallery instead? If Russia believes it has nothing to gain from its saber-rattling, then it will have two choices: act on their threats and face either a nuclear conflict or unified global opposition, or grow up and play by the rules.




Thomas Chandler Haliburton once said, “A college education shows a man how little other people know.” Too right. It is an unfortunate truth that in the modern era of liberal higher education, this quote seems more applicable to university professors than their students. On college campuses across America, the curriculum trends overwhelmingly toward teaching a liberal, socialist worldview rather than encouraging independent thought and competing ideas. Paul Kengor of the American Thinker published a phenomenal article on the impact of this system of indoctrination by the teaching of selective history (which has been enshrined for nearly fifty years) on today’s young electorate, and I heartily agree with many of his conclusions. However, I do not share his tone of pessimism regarding the ability to combat or roll back the policies that seem to have given rise to factories that package and ship young socialists. There exists an undeniable resurgence of young conservatives and libertarians attending university in the United States who, like an inverse of the counter-culture movement of the 1960’s, are bucking the system and fighting the power. But unlike the hippies of the last century, the children of this revolution do not engage in protest marches, overrun and occupy university faculty buildings or bomb federal offices. Rather, they operate like sleeper cells, quietly studying and jumping through the hoops held by their professors, knowing that one day they will be activated and begin doing their part to ensure the revolution marches on.

For many college students, the attacks of September 11, 2001 were a turning point in their education and the eye-opener as to how radically left-oriented their curriculum was. That was the case for me. I attended college at The American University in Washington, DC and woke up that morning to a student who lived across the hall in my dorm banging on our door and telling us that America was under attack. We switched on the TV and saw the burning World Trade Center Towers and heard that the Pentagon had been hit as well. Just like everyone else that day, we tried calling our families on our cell phones but got no service due to overwhelming call volume, though we all knew our parents were trying to get to us to find out if we were okay. We could see the smoke from the Pentagon from the top of our dorm, which looked down on Southern DC and Northern Virginia across the Potomac. When classes resumed (after several days of cancellations due to disgusting phony bomb threats), I was horrified and sickened to hear classroom discussion on the attacks. Not just students, but professors were laying the blame at America’s doorstep, telling us that it was our foreign policy that provoked them. Most said that the most appropriate response was not to retaliate, but to go on with our lives like nothing had happened. Others said (and I’m serious) that we should engage in talks with those responsible to find out what their grievances were and address them. I heard only one professor say that a military response was in order; he was Lebanese and had lived through his country’s civil war, seeing the full measure of Islamic fundamentalist atrocity first hand. But his voice was a lonely one.

Seeing that sort of American self-loathing encouraged by my professors made me vigilant and steeled me for more of the same. But this had been going on long before I was awakened; 9/11 just made the flaws in the system painfully obvious. The teaching of not just socialist principles, but Marxist principles, as rational and sympathetic world views was and continues to be the rule. Internationalism, UN peacekeeping and the erosion of national sovereignty are praised with little attention to their abysmal failures and inherent problems. Class divisions and the free-market are railed against and a premise of anti-capitalism is taken as a foregone conclusion. This environment is hard on students who favor free-markets, globalization, and small government. It is especially hard on those who support unilateral military action in national defense and the continued integrity of national sovereignty. But for those with the courage of their convictions, it is also a crucible in which they are forced to confront the arguments against their world-view and develop effective responses. For instance, the course material assigned for most classes is predominantly oriented to argue for the instructor’s point of view, and therefore professors feel justified in issuing lower grades to students who challenge that view on exams and written assignments. Conservative students, therefore, find themselves largely writing persuasive arguments for views diametrically opposed to their own in order to make the grade, and simultaneously hone their command of the opposition’s playbook. Students of a conservative persuasion are ideologically assailed at university every day. This sort of hostile environment breeds hard-charging, confident and intellectually competent individuals. Simply put, it’s a grueling proving ground (think the Siberian training scene from Rocky IV). Not everyone survives with their beliefs intact, but those who do become battle-hardened foot soldiers in the Young Conservative Revolution.

And the ranks of the Revolution are growing. College Republican membership now stands at over 250,000 nationally, which dwarfs College Democrat membership numbers. But the Children of the Revolution are not deluded: this is an uphill battle, and victory remains elusive. Nevertheless, we are stalwart in our beliefs that limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and low taxes are the cornerstones of liberty and that our country has strayed farther and farther from these principles with each passing year. We recognize that the Bush administration has done much for conservatism through its tax policy and Supreme Court nominations, but has been an egregious offender in the area of government growth and intervention. We are not your father’s conservative: we watch South Park, listen to hip hop, drink Starbuck’s coffee, wear tee shirts and jeans, and read The Onion. We have survived the liberal education system and lived to tell tales of wading through anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Israel, and anti-globalization protests in the quad. We always vote. And we walk among you.




Obama’s lead in the national polls has been trumpeted by most in the media as insurmountable. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd has already declared the race over and coronated Barack Obama. Gallup shows Obama leading by a staggering 11 points, while Zogby has the gap at only 2 points (Zogby was the only poll that accurately called the 2004 presidential election, by the way). The RealClearPolitics average (a compilation of all the major national polls) gives Barack Obama a 5 point lead. No matter how you slice it, however, this thing isn’t over until it’s over.

A single question has hung around Obama since the now seemingly pre-historic days of the brutal Democratic primary: why can’t he close the deal? His footrace with Senator Clinton was almost a photo-finish, with Obama unable to deliver a definite coup-de-grace until he was rescued by the super-delegates. And now, in an election season that should overwhelmingly favor the Democrats (the two-term sitting Republican president holds an approval rating right around 26%, just slightly higher than Congress’ 16.5%), Obama is locked in a grapple with McCain a month before Election Day when conventional wisdom tells us that this thing should be a cake-walk. What the hell is going on here?

Simply put, Americans aren’t sure about Barack Obama. Despite the media’s criminal negligence of some very pertinent details in Obama’s political and personal history, they’re not sure if they can trust his campaign claims that he’s a moderate with America’s best interests at heart. The McCain campaign has raised some serious and valid questions about Obama’s Senate record and his associations, and while most Americans will tell pollsters that they want this supposed mudslinging to stop, these doubts will cling to them all the way to the voting booth.

Some of last night’s post-debate analysis has given voice to these concerns and suggested that the Democrats may not be so sure about what November 4th will bring either. What they are sure of, however, is that if Obama can’t win it they’ll need a back-up plan. What they have in mind is commonly referred to as a “scorched earth policy”, and the comments made post-debate by David Gergen and James Carville on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” gave us a glimpse of what guise this policy would take. Simply put, they’ll blame it on all you bigots in Middle America.

When asked whether he thought it was “game over” for McCain by Cooper, Gergen said, “I think it's too early to declare victory Anderson, because Barack Obama is black. And until we play out the issue of race in this country, I don't think we'll know...” Obama is black? That’s crazy. But Gergen continued when pressed on the issue, saying, “Over the years there's a study now that's come out of Stanford University and the Associated Press along with Yahoo, saying that is - that his blackness may cost him as much as six points.” Apart from being pure comedy, this statement is also the groundwork for the Democrats to throw the country into turmoil following a McCain victory. Gergen is saying that the only reason that the election isn’t a done deal is that you racists (you all disgust me) might put McCain in the White House just to keep the black man down. This is the sword with which the Democrats will not only skewer McCain but cut America in two along racial lines. Just as the retreating Russians burned everything they left behind to starve Napoleon’s army, so too will the Democrats leave American race relations in such shambles that the McCain administration will be stuck with the smoldering aftermath of 2008 for years to come.

Not convinced? Look at what the loveable forest troll James Carville had to say on the same program:

“Now let me be clear here, if Obama goes in this race with a 5 point lead and loses this election, the consequences are - bull, man. I mean I don't think that's going to happen, but I think David it's a point to bring up.

“But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there.”

All I’m saying is, get ready to take the blame if Obama loses the election. It shouldn’t surprise any of us that liberals would rather see this country tear itself apart over an artificial issue than accept the results of a free and fair election. But this of course wouldn’t be the first time. Since the elections of 2000 and 2004, nothing has been sacred. If liberals can’t win an election, they clearly think something is either wrong with the system or wrong with us. They blame their loss on voter fraud or racism, or they try to enact their agenda by fiat through activist judges.




If John McCain wants to grab an electoral victory next month, the first step in that arduous, uphill journey is to win tonight’s debate. If he can pull that off, he can lay the groundwork for another surge ahead of Obama in the national polls and possibly steal away the critical swing states he needs over the course of the next few weeks. It’s not over for Senator McCain yet, but if he doesn’t give America a strong performance tonight, his momentum will evaporate. And momentum is what he needs right now.

In the first presidential debate last month we saw a tie. That tie was more the result of McCain not performing to his fullest potential than of Obama exceeding expectations. McCain made several missteps and missed key opportunities to truly savage his opponent. But most importantly McCain was wooden and unwilling to stray too far from his script. If you compare McCain’s performance to that of his running mate, Sarah Palin, the contrast is stark. Palin engaged the audience, was charming and able to improvise, and seemed unafraid to confront Biden directly. I wouldn’t be surprised if Governor Palin forced a role reversal last week and spent some time tutoring McCain on debate technique. I hope so.

McCain has to be more at ease tonight and he has to be willing to take a chance and hit Obama hard when he sees an opportunity. The good news is that McCain has been campaigning at town hall meetings since Eve ate the apple and has much more practice at it than Obama. He would do well to throw in a barb during the debate reminding Americans that he offered to hold joint town hall meetings with Senator Obama at the beginning of the campaign and was shot down (no pun intended). But he needs to make sure that he doesn’t repeat said barb five or twenty times in the course of the debate.

He’ll need to hit on a handful of key points that must be hammered home. First, he needs to continue to remind the American public that Obama is woefully unprepared on foreign policy and point out Obama’s bountiful gaffes on this topic, as he did during the first presidential debate. This is still McCain’s greatest strength, and he shouldn’t feel like the economy overshadows it to the point that he should play it down. Every time Iraq is discussed he diminishes Obama and comes out stronger.

That having been said, McCain really needs to hit the ball out of the park on the economy tonight. He needs to make it clear to the American people that his plan of reduced federal spending and low taxes is the best way out of the super-hyped financial crisis. He should not be afraid of this plan’s simplicity; that is its strength. But to make it work, he’s going to have to make ideological arguments for conservative and libertarian economic principles, and state in no uncertain terms that he believes you and I are the experts on how to spend our own money, and allowing us to keep more of what we’ve earned is the basis of a sound economy. He needs to point out that Senator Obama’s tax plan stifles small businesses, foreign investment and discourages companies from bringing their business and capital to the United States. He needs to warn Americans that these are class-warfare gimmicks that do not address the fundamental problems our economy faces. He needs to remind them that Obama intends to balloon federal spending and grow the government, which means unequivocally that Americans will lose more freedoms.

The biggest challenge that McCain will face will most likely not come from Obama, however. This town hall debate is likely to be hostile territory for the Republican candidate, as is typically the case. Loaded questions that, while not explicitly aimed at Senator McCain, are intended to attack him, while be rife. What’s more, character attacks typically don’t play well with these hand-picked town hall audiences, and right now the campaign trail is littered with them. John Dickerson has a great article on
The Slate that discusses this, referreing specifically to the specter of the “Ponytail Guy”, a reference to the town hall debate of 1992 that hurt George HW Bush’s re-election prospects. If McCain faces criticism for his aggressive attacks on Obama’s associations with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, he needs to hold Obama to account for his attacks on his inability to use a computer (due to war wounds) and mental stability, but he must do so with self-deprecating humor.

Because McCain knows what’s at stake tonight, I believe he will seriously step up his game and squeeze whatever advantage he can out of this debate. Bear in mind that because the last debate was a bit of a dud, we haven’t seen what kind of a bounce in the polls either of these candidates can get from a clear victory (especially if a zinger sound-byte is replayed by the media). Additionally, this is the year of election swings; McCain has already pulled off at least one comeback in the polls within a two-week period. Four weeks should a piece of cake, right?




The health of our representative republic is dependent upon the notion that no one man should permanently dominate government. George Washington, after serving two terms as our nation’s first and finest president, set the example not only for future presidents but other members of government by refusing to pursue a third. In the tradition of Cinncinnatus, who was twice appointed dictator of Rome in times of emergency and twice relinquished the title upon fulfillment of his duties, Washington intended to deliver a clear message: men who make a career of politics are flirting with tyranny. While the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution made this tradition the law of the land for the office of president, no such amendment pertaining to the United States Congress has seen passage.

Why, you ask? Well, the answer exposes one of the few fundamental but inevitable flaws in our Constitution and is an exercise in basic civics, which by my estimation none of you were taught in public school (just as I was not), so this may be new to some of you. Congressional term limits are only possible through a Constitutional amendment. Passing an amendment to the Constitution is rightly a laborious and difficult process and requires a measure to first be agreed upon in Congress (you can see the problem now, I think) and passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses. The bill is then submitted to the legislatures of every state in the Union for a simple up or down vote. As long as three-fourths of the states vote “yes,” the amendment is adopted and added to the Constitution. The US House has voted on the issue of Congressional term limits three times after the Republicans took control in 1994. Only once did the measure receive a majority, though it fell well short of the required two-thirds needed.

So in order for term limits to happen, the powerful must willingly relinquish their power, just as Washington courageously did in 1797. Judging from Congress’ voting record on whether or not to give themselves a pay raise (for a job well done, I suppose?), the likelihood of a Congressional term limit amendment falls just below Gary Coleman’s Oscar chances. I suppose that would make this entire argument academic, but (at the risk of getting Gary Coleman’s hopes up) stranger things have happened.

The need for Congressional term limits is clear to anyone with the eyes to see it. Indeed, most polls show two-thirds of the American public strongly favor the idea, as did Washington and Jefferson during the nation’s founding. Career politicians are disgustingly susceptible to corruption and monumentally difficult to unseat. A high rate of turnover in Congress is healthy for the republic, increasing competition and creating a merit-based hierarchy within the legislature rather than one based solely upon seniority. A limitation on the number of times a legislator is subject to re-election will incentivize principle-based votes rather than those driven by populist posturing. The strong ties between special interests and their long-time champions within Congress would be regularly broken, and these groups would be forced to make their case to a new crop of legislators. And best of all, term limits would eliminate the overwhelming bias for government growth and intervention on the part of those who have made their careers and reputations in government (even so-called conservatives).

Despite the obvious merits of Congressional term limits, various counter-arguments abound. For instance, some contend that this system would empower staffers, aides and other bureaucrats. The simple fact, however, is that it would be hard for these individuals to amass any more power and influence than they already have outside of running for office themselves. Congressional bureaucrats write legislation, correspond with constituencies, set their boss’s schedule, offer advice on key issues, serve as unofficial lobbyists and much, much more. Regardless of whether term limits are instituted or not, that will not likely change. Nevertheless, according to many experts such a mandatory turnover would most likely trickle down to staffers, as new legislators will bring with them new aides and advisers and be less accustomed to being “handled.”

Still others argue that term limits would represent an elimination of invaluable and irreplaceable experience in government. While the detractors of term limits intend this to be taken as a negative, I cite this as a central argument for them. There seems to be a perception that American citizens who have spent their lives outside of government are incapable of functioning within government (this notion is a direct result of the rise of career politicians). How insulting and illogical to think that an individual with a strong moral compass, commonsense and the confidence of his peers is an inappropriate replacement for what is oftentimes a jaded, complacent incumbent. A government composed of successful, concerned citizens was the very intent of the Founders rather than a welfare system for those incapable of or unwilling to pursue success in the private sector.

If term limits are to remain in the realm of fantasy, however, we would do well to at least assign a government-appointed staffer to walk behind our congressmen as they crisscross the halls of the Capitol whispering “memento mori,” or “remember, thou art mortal.”