How the Elephants Died - an Essay on the Broken Republican Party

In 2008, after eight years of George W. Bush, after having lost the House and the Senate, after having lost many State houses and Governorships, the Republican Party teetered on the edge of becoming a long term minority party in the United States. It was not because the Democratic Party had necessarily done anything special to change themselves, nor had they damaged the GOP in some manner as to deal a death blow. Quite the opposite, actually. It was the Republican Party that had been faltering from within.

After the crushing losses of 2008 the pundits began to ask the question, “What now for the GOP?” What they were asking had less to do with strategy and more to do with message. What did the GOP stand for? Who were the GOP leaders? The horrible primary set-up a GOP ticket which fronted a liberal Arizona Senator and a half-term unknown Governor from the 3rd least populated State. The GOP was deeply divided after the primary, and there was a large lack of enthusiasm for McCain as the leader of the party, or the nation. During the election, the GOP ticket seemed to be splitting as well, with the Governor of Alaska “Going Rogue” in defiance of the leadership of the Arizona Senator. After the election the depth and breadth of the divide was so obvious that to ask the question about the future of the GOP was not uncalled for.

The state of the Party at that time was one where the party leader and outgoing President, backed by the Party itself, had drastically veered from the “small government/limited government” doctrine which defined its surging success in recent years. No, the Party had lurched so far to the left that figure heads within the party defended the constant erosion of liberties and the perpetual borrowing and bail-outs as staples to the values of the party itself. Perpetual war, Patriot Act, wireless taps, bail-outs, federal healthcare/prescription drugs, No Child Left Behind. The party of limited government was responsible for the largest growth of the (non-essential) government in the history of the United States. After losing power in the executive and legislative branches, the party was at war with itself for what it had done, suffering from a crisis of identity.

During this crisis, however, there was a splinter group within the party which had laid the groundwork for the coming election cycle. The energetic and overly enthusiastic supporters of Ron Paul in 2008 had effected a tone within the party discussion, raising the issue of liberty. The big government GOP leaders were so put off by this message that Paul and his supporters were actually blocked from the national GOP convention. This group of the small Libertarian wing of the ‘Big Tent Party’ splintered from the GOP, holding their own Liberty Convention, where they put in place a long term strategy to retake the Republican Party.

As the Republican establishment selected new leadership and tried to scrape together a message, there was a movement already underfoot, planning Liberty Rallies on Tax day. The general message of the rallies was Liberty, low taxes, and a change to the monetary system. It was the Tea Party. The newly elected left was so afraid of the quick organization and the multitude of rallies across the nation that they immediately went into panic mode, claiming that the Liberty minded rallies were racist or terrorist in nature. The GOP establishment was so disconnected that they did not claim affiliation with the organizations spreading their message across America on Tax Day. This “radical element” was the organization of the Libertarian movement, the Campaign for Liberty. The success of the ‘Tax Day Tea Parties’ did not belong to the established GOP, however, after the movement began to swell in numbers the GOP began to approach the rag-tag leadership with an offer to take the Liberty movement under the wing of the Republican Establishment. As such, the GOP rested its momentum heading into the 2010 elections on the Tea Party. The strength of the Tea Party was brought into question on primary election day, and overwhelmingly the GOP establishment candidates were ousted in favor of the Libertarian Tea Party Conservatives. The narrative of 2010 was, then, that the GOP was now being led by the Tea Party, and as such the Republican Party could only retain the established leadership under the banner of this liberty movement.

After the unprecedented resurgence of the once dead GOP in 2010, the strategy of the established Republican leadership was to retain the talking points of the movement while dismantling the structure and ability of the Tea Party to splinter from the ‘Big Tent’. It was, after all, floated as an idea that the Tea Party itself could actually become a formidable third party, challenging the Republicans for top-tier status against a unified Democratic Party. Such a move, of course, would have ensured Democratic majority in 2012 and beyond. So the GOP establishment took the Tea Party congressmen and senators into their fold, and moved quickly to marginalize the Tea Party movement itself. By mid-2011 it was clear that the Tea Party had been so over-run by the mainstream GOP that the movement was dead under the moniker “Tea Party”. What began as a liberty movement quickly became a social conservative movement with no clear message of opposition. The message of small government, lower taxes, and individual liberty which defined the Tea Party became talking points for established moderate Republicans. The waters were so muddied that the mention of the Tea Party no longer represents a sect of the GOP, rather some ambiguous affiliation from within the Republican Party. You no longer hear about Tea Party candidates heading into the 2012 election cycle, rather you hear about whether voters identify with the Tea party. But I ask you, what does it mean to identify with the Tea Party in 2012? What is the party’s message? You are unable to answer because the GOP successfully dismantled the movement while simultaneously absorbing their talking points. The movement was no longer deemed a threat.

The fractures of 2008 began to reappear in the GOP during the selection of the presidential candidates in 2011. As the party began the process of identifying the next generation of leadership, so returned the animosity of the 2008 election cycle. The media scrambled to identify the leader of the Tea Party movement while the GOP establishment held their breath hoping none would arise. Sarah Palin was the media darling, mostly because of her atypical moves after losing the election in 2008. Michelle Bachmann was a very vocal member of the Tea Party, but lacked the excitement of Sarah Palin, and who could not get her endorsement for the ‘female amongst the males’ spot in the 2012 run. Other first term names were favored by the media, such as Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. It was becoming clear that the incorporation of the Tea party into the GOP had so diluted the movement that when the time came for the Tea Party to front their leader as a challenger to the GOP establishment candidate, the movement found it had been so love-struck with the recognition of the GOP that it was no longer a movement unto itself. It had no leadership. It had no message.

Seeing a sign of weakness from the Tea Party movement, who had developed into an active staging ground for the social conservative wing of the GOP and less of a true liberty movement, the Conservatives began their quest to identify and run a “True Conservative” candidate. Large bands of Conservative Republicans attempted grassroots draft campaigns for Governors from Indiana, Texas, New Jersey, as well as a fleet of Senators and Congressmen. Each draft campaign attempted to sway opinion in favor of their candidate as the Truest “True Conservative”. As the field winnowed, however, even the definition of a “True Conservative” was sullied, tarnished by conservative talking points that do not actually resemble the left-moderate actions which they were being used to describe. The Conservatives, as well, had been marginalized.

Then there are the 2008 hold-overs. Most notably Mitt Romney, who made a calculated decision to yield the 2008 race to McCain after South Carolina, and go directly into 2012 campaign mode. Mitt Romney, who maintained the campaign presence in the early voting states, was identified as one of those who was expected to run and was identified as an early front-runner. His campaign represents the ideas of the moderate-left lurch of the established GOP, and a continuation of those ideals of the ‘Neo Conservative’ era of the Republican Party.

The second hold-over is Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the Libertarian who was blacklisted from the GOP in 2008. Paul’s brand of Republicanism is the Goldwater/Jeffersonian Libertarianism. His strategy was much the same as Romney’s: stay in the early voting states and build a movement with which to roll through them in 2012. He was hated by GOP establishment and feared by the media. His followers were branded, as he was, as being out of touch. But then came the economic collapse. Then came the continued wars under Obama. Then came the financial disasters of the fiat currency system. And the media turned to the one man who had not only predicted the downfall, but was actively building a movement of educating the public to the extent of the failings. His movement, the Campaign for Liberty, gave life to the Tea Party and the GOP wins in 2010. Paul’s decision to enter the Presidential race gave the Liberty Movement a validated and tested leader, and this put fear back into the heart of the GOP. Paul’s early numbers and successes were dismissed as ‘Paul-bot anomalies’, and he was written off as a candidate out-of-touch (again) and unelectable. He was targeted by the media for blacklisting, and painted as outside of the party norm by the GOP. But Paul’s numbers continue to grow, his Campaign for Liberty continues to reach the voting bloc in charge of the future of the party – the youth vote. Where the Tea party movement failed, the original campaign for liberty strategy devised by Paul in 2008 had succeeded, and the Libertarian’s have a movement underway within the GOP.

We turned the calendar to 2012, the election year. We are under the thumb of an unpopular President, a Democrat who is easily beaten should an organized opposition show itself. Herein lies the rub. The fractures made visible in 2008 were never truly fixed, and now we see a Republican party so broken that it is becoming ever impossible to repair, re-establish, and retake the battlefield. The GOP is not organized. It has no leadership. The Tea Party has failed, and the message marginalized. The Social Conservative movement has failed, and the message marginalized. So what is left is a bloody power struggle between the Neo-Conservative elements of the establishment, both sides fighting so viciously to implement their brand of moderate leftism under the brand “Republican”. We see a Republican battle in which the majority has been fooled by the talking points, by the stolen message of the Liberty movement and the Conservative movement. The leaders of the GOP promote a continued growing of the government, increased erosion of liberties (such as the NDAA, SOPA, etc), increased spending, and perpetual war while at the same time using talking points about increasing liberty, reducing debt, cutting spending, and securing Americans by not backing down from saber rattling. The message is unorganized, it does not make sense. The Republican brand has somehow become no different from the Democratic brand, save a few minor means to the ends – but in both cases the end is the same.

When Republicans act like Republicans we win. When we act like Democrats, they win.

As the infighting intensifies, all eyes are on Ron Paul and his growing Campaign for Liberty. There is daily talk about Paul’s brand of Libertarianism splintering from the GOP. With it, Paul will take a national 10-15% of the GOP – those who learned the lesson from his movement and those who are simply tired of the heated divide in the Party. A Ron Paul third party run is the Tea Party splinter nightmare held by the GOP after the 2010 groundswell. But this time the GOP has no control. The movement has a leader. The leader has a brand. The brand has a following that transcends party lines, drawing support from the fiscal right and the anti-war left as well as liberty minded independents. The big story of the 2012 election is going to be the political landscape left behind by the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty and the lasting effects of a movement within the GOP or established as a third party.

The GOP cannot contain the core of this movement, the Libertarians.The atmosphere is ripe for a fracture of the party. The stress of an undefined party to define itself, a party who is historically on the conservative-right but who has recently lurched moderate-left, a party who has largely gone without a notable figurehead, without any true leadership for too long is the stress that continue to fracture the party from within. The squelching of the conservative right and the ignoring of the libertarian movement threaten a party so divided against itself that it will not beat this sitting President nor will it retain control of the either chamber of congress, no matter which Moderate-Leftist you prop up on Election Day. What we are witnessing may be the end of the ‘Big Tent’ GOP, where libertarians and social conservatives need not apply, where they are catered to during elections but ignored while in power. The minority blocs of the GOP are growing wise to the new Republican brand. They are growing less patient with the lurch and less tolerant of the lip-service. The Party has moved past the crossroads and is heading full-speed toward the political cliff. This may very well be the narrative on how the mighty elephant died.

What Would a Paul Presidency Look Like?

Ron Paul earned a solid 22% third place victory in Iowa on January 3rd, but the headlines went directly to a Santorum surge that has arguably been a "no-show" one week later in New Hampshire, where Paul is finishing 7% better than his polling average. Paul finished a very strong second tonight in the Granite State, but already the headlines are reading like a Huntsman/Romney head-to-head heat. Huntsman, of course, is finishing about 22% behind Romney and about 8% behind Ron Paul. And yet the media black-out continues. In fact, when watching the results on FoxNews, any mention of Ron Paul was met with "who will not be the nominee". Romney has had an array of "Not Romney" contenders, but no one has consistently finished stronger than Paul, and no one has the organization and momentum that Paul has after the first two contests. Arguably, after Iowa and New Hampshire it is clear that the true contender to take on Romney is and has been Ron Paul.

Ron Paul polls favorably against Obama in a head-to-head contest. Paul has the youth and Libertarian votes locked up. Paul is a true anti-war candidate, which would make Obama the war-candidate, locking up leftist anti-war support in a general election. Paul is the one candidate who speaks across the spectrum. He fits into no political mold. He is the true Libertarian. In a time when the electorate are so fed up with the status-quo, Ron Paul is the most dangerous man running for the American Presidency - because he will annihilate the status-quo.

Assuming a Paul victory in November, what would America look like on January 21, 2013 and for the first 100 days of his presidency? What about beyond?

Moments after being sworn into office, Ron Paul would issue an executive order repealing the Patriot Act. He would follow that immediately with starting to roll out his Plan to Restore America, his $1 Trillion budget cut, by ordering the systematic closure of several of the Executive Departments of the Federal Government. The restructure of the government would be done in such a way that State Governments and Private Business would be required to immediately step up to take the rolls of those efforts necessary enough to survive the transition - that is right - the free market will eliminate the waste. Within weeks, several US military bases overseas will be targeted for closure as part of a first wave, followed quickly by other waves of foreign base closures. Energy prices would dive, as Paul's America First energy initiative would stop the export of US energy, aiming the US onto a track of self sufficiency, thus putting an end to our dependency on foreign oil, and the need for defense of Middle Eastern oil.

The military would be strengthened by consolidating our currently overstretched resources. The closure of foreign bases and the immediate end to decades long unconstitutional regional wars would free up resources to focus on American infrastructure and defense. The military industrial complex would be slowed to a grinding halt as US involvement in missions like Tomahawk Bombing Libya and Drone attacking civilians in Pakistan would immediately cease. Our global mission would truly go from one of aggression to humanitarianism. Where governments ask us to leave, we would respectfully exit and allow them to handle their own affairs. We would cease to be the police, and once again lead by a strong example of civility and liberty.

The Native Tribes would be cut loose from the racist policies of the Dept. of the Interior, as it would be eliminated. In accordance with Article 1 section 6, treaties made with the native Tribes would finally be upheld, and the Supreme Court ruling of 1982 regarding the Lakotah Sioux would have a chance to be realized. The US would have to face the issue of Reservations and Native land once and for all.

The US monetary system would be transitioned back under the control of the Dept. of the Treasury, thus ending the privately owned National Banking System known as the Federal Reserve. The US dollars would become real money, and our debt would be painfully real - eliminating the annoying ability of Congress to pay off debt with borrowing fake fiat money. The US would experience deflation over time, and the value of the US Dollar (not the Federal Reserve Note) would increase on the strength of our growing economy.

We would see the US debt being paid down. We would see the end to banker-owned Congresses and the era of Bail-outs. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet that Paul goes after the companies who took taxpayer monies with the expectation of collecting those debts and returning the monies. We would see the tax system completely revamped, eliminating loopholes and reducing overall taxes. We would see a bare-boned Federal Government and a rise in the importance of state and regional governments.

A Paul Presidency would be dangerous to the status-quo, which is why paul is feared amongst those in power. It would be a transition toward a smaller federal government and lower regulation of personal affairs (like taking off your shoes to board an airplane). It would be a return to Constitutional sanity... to checks and balances.

It would be the best chance America has to survive another hundred years. It would be the best chance we have to remove the burden of debt from our future generations. It would be an era of a quieter and more competitive America, a renewed era of American Exceptionalism... one of American peace and prosperity... one where America returns as the shiny city on the hill for all the right reasons... one where we are followed out of respect, not followed out of fear.

Am I being overly optimistic? Sure. As a realist I understand that there would be push back from war-hawks in Congress, lobbyists, big labor, etc. The system that has grown too large to fail would fight so very hard to keep the pork barrel full, even if this fat hog was eating the citizens out of house and home.

So the honest answer is that there would be struggle. There would be news stories of doom and gloom as the fat cats began getting isolated and eliminated. There would be a period of struggle and strife as we shake off the dirt and get to work on truly restoring our country. There would be work, transition, and a whole lot of personal responsibility - a broom in every hand to clean up this country!

We just may, through all of this, find ourselves the leaders of the next great generation of Americans.

Of course, this is all only a possibility if Ron Paul is given the fair shake he deserves as a true front runner and presidential contender. A Ron Paul America... can you imagine?

CPAC Week and the Dark Horse Candidates

This is CPAC week, and even though some potential 2012 candidates are not speaking, other lesser potentials are using the CPAC event as a continued institution for networking and furthering the political dialogue. Huckabee and Palin are not scheduled to attend or to speak, but the likes of Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Luis Fortuño are expected to take a moment on stage.

We are one year away from the Iowa caucuses, and I believe that the usual attendees at these events do so in hopes to stay current, maintain or gain name recognition, and wait for their chance to jump into the race (or at least receive a draft movement on their behalf).

The 2008 campaign was changed by two dark horse candidates - Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. They both could now enter the 2012 race as established figures in the party with a clear direction and message. 2012 still leaves much room for a dark horse candidate... for someone with a message or movement that could unite the country and fix this economic, foreign, and otherwise general disaster we have in there now...

Keep an eye on Luis Fortuño, Puerto Rican governor. He just got a Bob Barr endorsement in the Atlanta Journal, and the Associated Press just interviewed me for a story they are going to run about a potential Puerto Rican President of the United States. Like I said, there is plenty of room for a dark horse candidate to establish himself over the next year... with the rate of progress in Puerto Rico, and their rebounding economy, one has to wonder how much longer before Fortuño becomes a household name...

2012 Presidential Speculation

I last wrote a full article on 2012 Republican speculation in early October of 2009. Arguably, this is a different world than 13 months ago. The rate of change in the political spectrum over the course of the 2010 cycle has been so much so that one should stop to ponder some scientific source of free energy from it! That being said, it is time to look at some serious and not so serious issues facing the presidential elections of 2012.

To begin, one has to wonder what the current President is planning for 2012. Early speculators for the left are suggesting that Hillary is ready to jump in and save the party and the unpopular president, while others are publicly calling for the president to announce that he will not seek re-election now in order to stop short of absolute destruction of the Democratic Party. A saviour he was not! Of course, barring any major changes on the left, we should expect to see a very weak President unable to control his divided legislature and thus enter the race as a weak incumbent. His performance at the G20 summit and throughout Asia last week indicate that the world is no longer smelling what Barack is cooking!

The GOP faces two camps of contenders for 2012 - those who fell short in 2008 and those who are new to Presidential politics; Each has a strength and a weakness. Those who are past failures have name recognition, but also suffer from burn-out or simple distaste from the people - hey, we already said we didn't like your brand of politic. Those who are up and comers have the fresh sense of something new, but may struggle with name recognition on a serious national scale. For the old, they suffer from the changes over the past two years, as anyone can clearly tell 2012 is definitely no 2008 in the political world!

So, who is in and who is out for the GOP?

Fox News is running a series called "12 in 2012" where they highlight 12 candidates:

Those candidates includes: Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
McPike reports, “A thirteenth story is also planned with long-shots such as former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, and others like Donald Trump.”

I had looked into the campaigns of some potentials (mentioned in my 2009 article linked above). Idaho Gov. Otter is out, carrying only 59% of his state when the Republican Senator snagged 71%. ND Gov Hoeven easily won election as the US Senator from ND with 76% of the vote. Some time on the federal stage could lend credence to his libertarian tilt. Gov. Luis Fortuño of Puerto Rico is single handedly turning the liberal state into a conservative economic model, and his campaigning in 2010 with others around the nation have lended credence to him as an early pick.

So, who is in? Who is out? No one is talking just yet. Word is that some are waiting until after the first of the year, and after the new congress is seated. Some are waiting a bit longer to see who is jumping into the race.

Of the list above, who would I NOT support?
1. Mitt Romney. He is a big government moderate who has gained nothing since 2008, and remains somewhat of an elitist with respect to the people and the media. He has nothing good to offer the GOP... unless you need someone to sell you a used car.
2. Bobby Jindahl. Anyone who votes 'yes' on making the Patriot Act permanent will never get my vote. He would be the Bob Dole of 2012, and is not significant enough to move this country back into the hands of the people. His horrible state of the union response in 2009 was both the beginning and the end of his national level political career. He is best left to the people of Louisiana.
3. Sarah Palin. I know Palin is a fan favorite, but she cannot beat Obama, and she cannot unite the base. Her career move to leave Alaska's Governorship in 2009 (after just two years) destroyed her credibility as an elected official. For whatever her purpose, the end did not justify the means. Her re-election campaign in 2010 would have been the training for 2012, and her two more years running up to that election plus two more ahead of the 2012 election would have given her significant executive experience. Instead she became a cheerleader for the tea party, in my mind washing away all the hope and respect I had for her as an elected official.
4. Newt Gingrich. He may have been third in line for the top spot in the nineties, but this is not the nineties. Newt Gingrich is a relic, and does not have what it takes to 'right' the sinking ship.

Who would I support?
1. Luis Fortuño. A Puerto Rican bid for the presidency would send a shockwave through the nation. A territory of the US for over one hundred years, the island's population are US citizens, but hold no vote in the US federal government. They pay no federal taxes, but receive federal funds. Fortuño has spent the last two years reforming the island commonwealth into a tax haven, and has worked to drastically cut the size of the island's government - and the jobs that went with it. He is a rising star, and his campaign would not only draw a latino voting bloc, it would change the debate to one focused on our imperial policy of territories.
2. Ron Paul. His economic forecasts proved to be true. His foreign policy stance is very isolationist, much like most Americans pre-WWII. His followers have taken root in local and state parties across the nation, moving into key leadership positions. His backers have never quit the 2008 campaign. Ron Paul's followers are the reason for the Tea Party. The Campaign for Liberty has millions of followers. Ron Paul's appointment as the Chair of the Sub-Committee on Monetary Policy, which he will use to go after the Federal Reserve lends credence to his gain in popularity and credibility within the party, and the outcome of his crusade of the Fed could put him in a strong place to lead the field in 2012.
3. John Hoeven. If he can do something strong and dramatic within the Senate, he stands a chance to make a national name for himself. He is easily in the libertarian camp; arguably able to become the Ron Paul of the senate (notice Rand did not get that distinction). He did a great job in North Dakota, and could do a great job taking that same policy to D.C.

Others who Intrigue.
1. Lou Dobbs. There were feelers put out when he left CNN last year that he may be setting up for a 2012 run. Dobbs would do a great job in the mix.
2. Joe Arpaio. The Arizona County Sheriff will play the part of Tom Tancredo, getting tough on immigration. He holds general favor across the nation, and is already making the rounds.

Wikipedia is tracking 28 potential GOP contenders, with the prospect of a few more waiting in the wings. As the dust settles from November 2010, it will surely be interesting to see who decides to put a horse in the race for 2012.

My Official 2012 Presidential Endorsement

I was going to wait until AFTER tomorrow night, but I cannot wait.

Please check out my new blog, Draft Luis Fortuno 2012.

Please head over to the site, read the initial articles I have linked, and some key words of praise for Fortuno. Take a moment to see what a conservative Republican has done in a liberal Carribean island, and US territory (Puerto Rico).

Luis Fortuno is the underdog, the dark horse, and just what this country needs - a strong man cabaple of looking his constituents in the eyes and saying 'get off the government payroll and into the free market!'

Luis Fortuno represents the voice the GOP has been missing, and it is time to spotlight a worthy member from the conservative ranks who, quite literally, speaks the language of the Hispanic voting bloc - a core group of social conservatives who the liberal media is courting on behalf of the liberal Democrats.

Mr. Fortuno sees Hispanics as a natural GOP constituency. The University of Virginia Law School graduate and father of triplets says what he missed most while serving two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives was weekly lunches with his extended family. "Hispanics put family first, and from that stems all else," Mr. Fortuno says. "We are mistrustful of government, own family-sized businesses, and value basic social principles. All of that is aligned with my party."

Governor Fortuno is more than a talking head, or a game-piece in the battle for votes. Fortuno finishes the job, stands firm on Conservative principles, and represents a want and will to preserve and grow the strength of the Union - as the leader of the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico (The Republican Party on the island aimed at pushing for statehood).

This guy is the one we have been waiting for - a small government fiscal conservative, a catholic social conservative, and a fiery leader with a record of strong finishes!

GOP Power Struggle - Fixing the "Warlord" Party

CNN reports, most humorously, that the GOP is a shattered party in "warlord" status. I say humorously because it is on par with calling water wet. There was one clear message in the 2008 Primaries - the party had no leadership. The current leadership had failed (GW Bush), the party constituents felt increasingly unrepresented, and the vetting process for leadership failed miserably with the selection of John McCain.

There is currently a battle underway, between the old dogs like McCain, and the new dogs like Palin. A power vacuum of epic proportion:

In one corner, conservatives are accusing moderates of abandoning party principles. In the other, moderates are blasting conservatives for drawing partisan lines. And then there's the Tea Party fringe that's attacking both sides -- moderates because they are moderate and conservatives because they are not conservative enough. "Where the Republicans are having the biggest problem now is sort of a vacuum of leadership," said Republican strategist Chris Wilson.

With 2010 quickly approaching, the GOP leadership is going to rise from the most vocal and most active crowds. This means that the 2010 GOP primaries and general election are most likely going to be driven by the "fringe" Tea Party activists (I say fringe because CNN may not recognize that the Tea Party philosophy is actually becoming very mainstream). The party has lost identity, purpose, and confidence of the electorate... on this point, the CNN report is right.

The CNN report goes on to say: "The reason, according to Avlon, is that the Republican Party tried to move forward without dealing with the mistakes of the recent past."

The mistakes of the recent past do continue to plague the RNC and a general Republican "brand" which is exactly why Michael Steele and other National level figure heads have been completely ineffective in "fixing" the party. They have attempted to continue marching forward with no valid attempt at reconciliation. It is this disconnect which has moved the RNC out of favor with many GOP affiliated voters and independents. With the RNC so out of touch with the voters, there is no way they can claim to represent the party members.

However, the mistakes of the past are being reconciled on a different front... the "fringe" Tea Parties are airing the dirty laundry list of the "fed-up" Republicans. To be a Republican used to mean a leaning on certain core values... these values were the tent poles, and all were welcome inside this tent. However, the current party is plagued by an inability to stick to the principles:

*Social conservatives have worked to isolate a certain part of the population, using the power of government to push an agenda.
*Security conservatives have become war hungry, using 9/11 and the "fear" of imminent attack as a means to perpetuate foreign war as well as eradicate civil liberties at home.
*Fiscal conservatives became corrupted by power and "spent" like socialists.

We became the gay-bashing, war mongering, fiscally loose political party who insanely surrendered the very liberties we were supposed to protect and defend... We became paranoid in the aftermath of 9/11, so much so that we actually offered up civil liberties in a massive expansion of the federal government, aiding in the redefinition of "government" in America - I fear a lurch toward totalitarianism that we may never get back.

What must come from this? What Lesson is to be learned? How must we rise from the ashes as a new and more perfect political party? How can we be the party to reclaim American Liberty - relighting that shiny beacon on the hill?

The answer - Principled Leadership.

We need a leader who understands the fact that only 25% of Americans approve of Congress' Job. This alone draws into question the partisan struggle for over-reaching government control of our daily lives.

We need a leader who understands that ability to use force is sometimes more powerful than the use of force, and that Americans want to be done fighting perpetual wars.

We need a leader who understands that the only way to fix this nation is not to further divide the country by fanning the flames of "control" that separate American from American, rather to scale back the grip of government social engineering, letting Americans once again experience liberty.

All things can be solved in this nation by following a simple philosophy - smaller government means more freedom.

A republican leader needs to live by that simple philosophy and lead by it as well... it is with that fundamental value that we become the "big tent" party once again. We need a leader who will redefine the party as the small government party. We need to counter the Democrats, not become the democrats.

We need to give the American people the opportunity to succeed, not simply have the government "do it for us". Yes, that means rejecting a government run health care system in favor of re-writing the rules to allow doctors to work more directly with patients at a more affordable cost. The answer, I tell you, is not a government take-over... it is in Tort reform, an increase in community clinics for health and wellness visits, and a challenge to the American People to lead healthier lives.

We need to give the American People true liberty... that includes sexual affiliation. No studies have shown that same sex couples do mental or physical damage to bringing up children. There is no harm in same sex hospital visitations. No harm is going to be done to our society by giving a same sex individual the right of kinship or the power of attorney. We need to not run the government like a church, and remove church functions from government - like marriage. The government should not recognize ANY marriage as a "blessed event" (actual words from the Pierce County, WA marriage License). The answer is to allow Contracts of Civil Trust, where religiously married individuals as well as same sex couples can enter into a civil trust with one another, allowing powers of attorney, shared resources, etc. Why are we using the government to force social agenda's one way or the other? Judge not lest ye be judged... Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Let us find a leader who can respect the social conservative values of this country while at the same time explaining the perils of social engineering by the government, and you have a party that can now focus on the real issues of government expansion.

We need to give the American People a smaller government, less taxes. Reduce and eliminate government programs across the board. Set the challenge to the states to pick the programs that work for their communities and leave it to the states. Let's start living by the Constitution at all levels, and eliminate government excess.

We need to stop running the government like a business. Businesses live to make a profit... if a government makes a profit it should be returned to the people. We should pay down our debts, which further ensures our security, eliminate the ability of the government to put us into eternal debt, and stabilize our form of currency - returning it to a treasury note, eliminating the Federal Reserve.

Gingrich changed the GOP in 1994 with the Contract with America. We need similarly strong leadership and a renewed message of clear objectives. We are the party of small government, increased liberties, reduced taxation... somewhere along our journey we lost our way. This is our opportunity to correct the course... If only we have leadership strong enough to make these changes.

I have a list of potentials for the 2012 GOP. Do you see one capable of leading our course correction? Please vote to the right. If you don't see your "pick", please, leave a comment and let me know of a rising star!

2012 Candidates Discussion - The Dividing Line

The dividing line for 2012, in my opinion, is whether the candidates truly represent the ideals of the Tea Parties or if their overall objective is little more than regaining power for their political party. In 2012, it is not about party power - it cannot be... what it must be about is returning this country to it's constitutional roles, where The People and States are sovereign and self empowered, and the national government regulates common defense and commerce.

The road that political parties has lead us down, too, is a line of division. To be a Republican means more to be pro-life & anti-gay marriage than it does small government & fiscal responsibility. The two do not go hand in hand, and so we have isolated, say, homosexuals who also want to fight for liberty from oppressive government, high taxation, etc. Instead, the GOP acts as the oppressive entity, laying a heavy hand on Social Policy rather than leading the cause of liberty. It is one thing to believe in a certain way of life - it is another to use the power of government to force a way of life upon another... be it religious, sexual, or other... The GOP needs to embrace Social Conservatives, but not let Social Conservative morals be dictated to others.

For instance - I am a straight male, married, and growing a family. I am a firm believer that marriage is a religious event, not a social contract, and that it is up to the faith to determine how they bond two spirits. I believe that it is not the responsibility of the government to approve or license religious events. In fact the individual may be free to grant "power of attorney" to whomever one so chooses, same sex or otherwise. The states have turned the religious act of marriage into an act of drawing up a civil contract between two parties. Simply relying on my own spiritual or personal belief as a just cause to deny another individual an ability to grant legal authority to act on their behalf or jointly with them is the antithesis of liberty.

So I again suggest that the dividing line in the selection of a Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential elections is in whether or not the candidate has shown an ability to distinguish between personal values and government's role in dictating morality.

Applying the rule above, as in the case against government involvement in marriage, to future candidates in all their policies has led me to create my watch list - as detailed in my previous post. Which candidate has shown a history of liberty and a true understanding of sovereignty, and which is simply "next in line"? Which has the ability to drastically change the face of the GOP, returning it to a party of limited government, TRUE limited government? Which candidate has the necessary experience and fortitude to take on not only the radical left, but the Social Political machine driving both parties? It is this litmus that has led me to place a candidate like Luis Fortuno, Governor of Puerto Rico, as a front runner and exclude individuals like Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty.


Pawlenty and Daniels would make fine run-of-the-mill candidates, both having gone on the record in order to have a trail of saying the right thing, however, their actions lead me to believe that at best they would be Bush Light - where government would continue to grow, debt would continue to grow, and liberty would continue to shrink.

Fortuno, on the other hand, has something different. He comes from a different political climate, where the government of Puerto Rico is sovereign, the debates and issues the island territory faces are noticeably different than the rest of America. In the face of mounting government debt, Fortuno slashed $2 Billion from government spending by eliminating thousands of unnecessary government jobs. Two billion from an island territory with a GDP of $77 Billion is no small task, and is a sure sign of a strong liberty minded individual.

When looking for a 2012 candidate this far in advance, I am interested in what stands out... what is so unique that it cannot be ignored? I am also looking for effective leadership in the face of hardship... trial by fire. Run-of-the-mill candidates are a dime a dozen in this new century... I want to continue a discussion about what the dividing line is for YOU. What is it that YOU want out of a candidate... What is it that would make a Romney or Pawlenty appealing to you? Or do you know of someone else worthy of mention?

What are the non-negotiables as we turn a liberty movement into momentum for a candidate?

Contemplating the Book of Revelation, Astrology, Christianity, and The Coming of the "Anti-Christ"

There has been much question as to my extended absence. The answer is that I have been reading, watching, and trying to better understand the age in which we are living - the only way to do this, sometimes, is to shut up and listen.

As such, I have been reading the Book of Revelation, studying Astrology, Researching the Mayan Calendar Prophecies, Contemplating Christianity and Religion as a whole, all in attempts to see things a little clearer, in search of the one truth.

I have written down my thoughts, theories, feelings, etc in support of this research I have done, and I am hoping to start an existential conversation about humanity, our history, and our future. All those, who are inspired to do so, please read and comment.

The texts of ancient mystics, prophets, seers, etc were usually encrypted - with certain specifics purposely omitted to prohibit evil kings from using the science of ancient astrology to their benefit. As such, it is of the most importance to find common patterns and common themes across all sources of ancient texts.

Let us start by addressing Astrology. We all know what our "sign" is, and we usually have a rudimentary understanding of what it means to be a "Virgo" or a "Cancer", etc. But the actual study of Astrology was used as a science for thousands of years before recorded history. In fact it was three Astrologers who visited the Christ Child in the story of the Nativity - indicating that those who read the stars where revered for their knowledge of science, or being wise men. The purpose of Astrology, as shown by pre-dynastic Egyptians, Mayans, Old Testament Jews, and right up to Medieval Catholics was to predict the future by the understanding the past... The old saying "Those unfamiliar with the past are doomed to repeat it" is true in short term history as much as it is in long term cosmic history - the best predictor for future events are the events of the past.

Astrology is the study of the cycles of the Earth's Precession through the Zodiac and how it relates to events on the earth. These cycles, along with the placement of the sun, planets, and galactic stars were accurate indicators of events on earth. The Mayans used Astrology to accurately predict the death of their gods and their culture at the hands of the "god of the cross" - aka Christianity. The "Wise Men" used Astrology to predict the coming of a new age, a new king, a teacher of Love and Holism born of a Virgin. Moses and Abraham used Astrology to mark the end of Calf worship/sacrifice, and the beginning of the reign of a New God - worthy of sacrifice of Rams only. Egyptians changed their gods of worship based on Astrology - Lions, Bulls, Rams. It was always greatly feared and/or greatly celebrated when Astrology indicated the change from one astrological age to the next. The understanding of the ancient cycle preceding was an indicator of events to come.

The best predictor for future events are the events of the past

The beginning of the Book of revelation repeats the phrase: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches". Roughly translated - if you understand the code, you will understand the events which are going to unfold.

It is theorized that the story of Noah is true, not in a flood of a River (as shown on the History Channel), but an actual flood of the earth, when sea levels rose over 400 feet around the world after a cosmic bombardment over the planet, namely Lake Agassiz of the Canadian Glacial Field some 13,000 years ago... the bombardment broke a glacial dam, flooding the oceans with fresh water of a lake thousands of miles across. Cosmic bombardment would also mean meteors hitting the ocean, possibly sending tidal waves upwards of a mile high racing toward shore - erasing the majority of civilization at the time... an event that crippled humanity to the point that it would take thousands of years to repopulate and reach another golden age. This bombardment happened in the Astrological House of Leo, the lion, the Beast.

For reference of these events, search for the Pampian Plains, Lake Agassiz, and the flash freeze of the last great Ice Age.

A zodiacal house lasts 2160 years, a complete zodiacal cycle lasts 25,920 years. The earth's cosmic dance incorporates something called a Precession, in which the earths axis and relation to the cosmos wobbles like a top. The earth makes a one degree precessional shift every 72 years. Each zodiacal sign has 30 degrees (360 degrees div by 12 signs = 30 degrees/sign). 72 years/deg multiplied by 30 degrees per sign gives you 2160 years in each zodiacal sign or "House". Being in the House of a sign means that on the Spring Solstice, the Sun will rise in that zodiacal sign. You can use this ancient mathematical discovery of Astrology to more accurately age civilizations who built temples to the Solstice, as carvings and other "findings" can be carved over, re-written, etc... but math never lies. 1+1 is always 2... and the sun will only be at 23 degrees on a solstice in a certain part of the zodiacal cycle.

As such - the last time the earth was in the zodiacal sign of Leo/Aquarius, there was great cosmic bombardment.

The warning of a return bombardment in the House of Aquarius and Leo is the encompassing story of the Book of Revelation.

Christ is referred to as the "Fisher of Men", he walked on water (a water sign), was the bringer of Love and Human Feeling. He represented the change in zodiacal change from the house of Aries to the House of Pisces. Pisces' House is ushered in with a Winter Solstice of the sun rising in Virgo - thus the fisher of men is born of a Virgin... this is the prophecy of the Messiah - the new god - the one who ushers in a change of the zodiacal change.

Revelation warns of the beast, the anti-Christ which will follow the reign of Jesus on earth. the mark of the beast is 666 - 6x6x6 = 216. The Serpent who rises the beast out of the sea has a crown with ten horns. 216 x ten = 2160, the age of the zodiacal House... These are interesting clues. The Serpent who rises from the sea represents the House of Aquarius, the "Mark of the Beast" and the "Horns of the Serpent" represent the rule of this House for the next 2160 years on earth.

The warning of the cosmic events in this house are what is most important to this coming age... the coming of the Beast - Leo, the Lion is the Winter Solstice to Aquarius' House. The destruction of earth in the past occurred by disastrous cosmic events in the House of Leo/Aquarius, some 13000 years ago. The warning of the reign of the beast and the fire & brimstone falling from heaven is a warning that the Earth may be moving into a cosmic debris field and will again enter bombardment from space - destroying life on earth, in the water, etc... a great gnashing of teeth and war following the bombardment. The Book also discusses the battle in Heaven, which may indicate an increase in "shooting stars" or other cosmic events. The blocking out of the sun, etc. are events that coincide with ejecta from meteor impacts filling the atmosphere.

The age of Aquarius, as charted by the Mayan Calendar, begins December 21, 2012 - the Winter Solstice of 2012. This is the end of their calendar, indicating, as some believe, the entering of a new age of enlightenment... though some also are concerned with the idea that it marks the end of the world.

It would appear that many ancient civilizations warn of great cosmic bombardment during the coming age of Aquarius/Leo... The best predictor for future events are the events of the past... so it would indicate that a great bombardment is, in fact, on the horizon.

What signs have we seen of increased comet activity - the return of the sky serpent?

In the 1990's, Jupiter was hit by a massive Comet, creating explosions many times the size of the earth. In 2007, Comet Holmes suddenly increased in brightness by over a million times - becoming visible in the daylight. The explosion of this comet expanded debris cloud larger than the size of the sun. Was this explosion a random out gassing on the scale never seen before? Or perhaps was this a cosmic collision utterly destroying this comet - sending unstable debris of unknown size throughout the solar system?

The best predictor for future events are the events of the past. Could it be that our ancient texts were not warning of an anti-Christ, rather warning of the coming of a celestial age - the return of the earth to a dangerous area of space where massive planetary bombardment is the norm?

This is a lot to digest - and my blogging absence is an indicator of that. Please take a moment, consider what I am proposing, and do a little out of the box thinking. What do we know, what do we think we know, and what has been lost to blind faith that the old art of Astrology, true Astrology, that could prepare and protect our civilization in the coming age?

I am still trying to better understand these things... but I wanted to share something truly thought provoking with you... Thoughts?