Mr. Boehner… Time to Man Up.  The so-called “Hastert Rule” that prevents a floor vote in the Republican controlled House unless a majority of the Republicans favor the bill is wrong.  Even in the case of terrible legislation (which I believe the Senate immigration reform bill is), it is a convolution of our legislative process to use this type of procedure to prevent a House vote on a bill.   I will even go so far as to say that if the Republicans pull this stunt on the immigration bill (assuming Senate passage), then their action is just as irresponsible as the one(s) pulled by the Democrats in the passage of Obamacare.  It is unfortunate that this bill may ultimately end up being as bad as Obamacare, but it is what it is.  The battles on the great questions of our day must be fought with ideas and reason, not with slick and twisted perversions of our legislative process.

There is only one right way to deal with the Senate bill if it comes over to the House.  That way is to pass a House version of immigration reform, go to conference, and fight hard for the best possible legislation that can be had.  Then, and only then, when the legislative process has run its course, let the votes fall where they will.  Elections have consequences.   The party that wins gets the advantage of leadership and leadership translates to advantage in legislating.  The only way to effectively deal with bad Senate legislation is with good ideas and a good House bill to use as compromise leverage. 

It must be a terrible thing to sit in the Senate or House and witness the manufacture of bad law.  I can understand that the temptation to derail the process in any way possible is great and can easily be rationalized.   However, the ends do not justify the means.  People deserve the government they elect.   Without consequences, there is no basis to judge the power and wisdom of one party’s policies.  Play the game by the rules, stay true to your principles, and fight hard for the best package you can get. 

The Certitude of Liberal Genius.  The overriding principle of liberal thought in America today is the certitude that they know better what is good for you than you know yourself.  As a general principle, this would not be so dangerous.  There are many very intelligent people in the liberal universe and the fact is that in many cases, they may very well have some good ideas about how society and government should work.  There can be no question that in these struggling economic times, there are many people who need a helping hand in our country; there is a place for compassion and heart.

But here is the rub: Liberals have elevated this principle to the very top of their concerns.  By definition, that means that all other concerns are subordinate to this.  Concerns such as the rights of the individual, the free market nature of our economy, the impartiality of government, and the right to have a chosen religion set guidelines for how we live our lives.  Liberal thought has arrived at a point in its evolution where any means justify the end.  This, I contend, is the culture that has led us into the many scandals that are currently percolating throughout this Administration.

I have always thought that Presidents get far too much credit when times are good and far too much blame when times are bad.  But there can be no question that they do in fact set the tone for those they choose to help them run this government.  Any person selected through the patronage system will understandably think that they are to emulate the philosophy espoused by their patron.  Now you and I, as regular citizens, can factor in the nuance of the politician saying one thing to one group and an entirely different thing to another group, many times on the same day.  But these political appointees don’t really have that latitude.  They are soldiers on the front; they are defending the holy grail of thinkspeak; they are charged with the task of transforming this nation.  We have never been surprised to find these political handmaidens behaving in an overzealous fashion and we never should be.  But it has also been understood, up until recently, that when this exuberance occurs, it is admitted and those excitable parties take their abundance of energy to another, more appropriate cause that is outside of the public trust.  That has not been happening with liberals over the last decade or so.    They have become quite shameless in their quest for “the principle” and have basically accepted that anything… and I do mean anything, goes in pursuit of that goal.

Conservative thought can be just as wrongheaded as liberal thought.  It can, and does,  lead to the very same abuses and corruption.  But the conservative wing of our political spectrum has undeniably done a better job of calling out its radicals than has the liberals.  Obama came into the White House in open and unabashed intention of not only pursuing this principle, but actually ingraining it into our government to such an extent as to make it intractable.  Until the leadership of the liberal wing in this nation reverts back to placing the principle to a proper position below more central and important concerns, I fear that the arrogance exhibited by Obama and his ilk will continue to run amok in our government; to the detriment of our nation.

Epiphany of Distinction.  After living in this world for over 60 years, I believe that I have finally realized the difference between a liberal and a conservative.  Now let me be clear; I did not say “the difference between a Democrat and a Republican”.   I did not say that because based on my life experience, all Democrats are not liberals and all Republicans are not conservatives.  As further clarification of my clarification, I do not mean liberal in the social sense or in the fiscal sense; I do not mean conservative in the foreign policy sense or in the judicial sense.  I am speaking about these terms as they pertain to a general philosophy of life; a guiding principle that colors all that makes up an individual.  I have always known there was a difference between a liberal and conservative and, being a moderate conservative myself, have sought to define how I am different from those liberals that I have so heartily disagreed with over the years.  However, I could never clearly, in a general sense, quantify what this difference is.  I think I now can.  Like many things in life, it begins as a simple choice and over time and through a series of compound equations and unintended consequences, it evolves into a way of life that in many ways does not resemble what it was first intended to be.

My wife and I were keeping our grandchildren with us for a couple of days; they are a 2 year old boy and a 3 year girl.   These are our first grandchildren and we are both shamelessly overindulgent with them; her much more than me.  I am recognized in the family as the hard case, the disciplinarian, otherwise known as “mean old papaw”.  Upon awakening this morning, the kids ate only a minor portion of the breakfasts prepared for them by their grandmother and it was my position that there would be no more food or snacks until lunch time.  My wife found this to be unreasonable because, after all, they are just children and must have nourishment.  As I typically do, I went my way with my belief and she went hers; the kids got pretty much what they wanted the rest of the morning.  The distinction I see in our two approaches was that of discipline; I required it and she did not.  And that, my friends, is the difference between a liberal and a conservative.  Not only does a liberal lack behavioral discipline, they tend to demonize it.  Now when I say a liberal lacks discipline, I don’t mean they are weak and unable to “stick to the task” at hand.   Quite the contrary, I have found their reliance and resolve quotients about the same as conservatives.  I am talking about that general philosophy of life.  Let me try to explain.

My position is that the kids will learn from being hungry to take full advantage of morning food being offered to them in the future.  This in turn will hopefully lead them to recognize this principle in other walks of life and lead them to a higher level of accountability.  On the other hand, if we allow them to eat when they wish, they lose respect for the appointed meal times in their lives and reasonably develop a poor view of those who demand a certain degree of rigidity in those meal times.  Are they prepared for their elementary school careers where there will be appointed meal times or will they rebel against those schedules as being arbitrary and nonsensical?  Will they demand the same casual attitude from their teachers and peers that they have grown so comfortable with at home?  Will this lead to a certain tolerance for those who wish to nibble throughout the day rather than eat on a conventional tour?  Will they tend to view those who adhere to the conventional tour as narrow-minded and unenlightened?  Will this permissive attitude about meal times extend to study schedules, work careers, and other aspects of their lives as they grow and mature into adults?

Is this an oversimplification?  Yes, of course.  Is this an extension of the elementary into the complex?  Absolutely yes.  However, who can deny that we as a society have become so tolerant, and supportive of tolerance, and so politically correct, and supportive of political correctness, that we have managed to dilute some of the fundamental things that create our true worth as individuals?  Accepting the reality of mediocrity and promoting mediocrity is two entirely different things; and perhaps the line between them has been blurred.  While recognizing and defending the rights of individuals to be different, to be themselves, to be non-conformist as compare to the bulk of society, and to live a life with narcissistic blinders, have we not diminished the alternative, and many times more difficult, choices that are made by most people in our nation?  There is an old saying that has been used by Alexander Hamilton, Ginger Rogers, and Malcolm X (how’s that for diversity?) that goes…”If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”.  Standing and fighting for right and wrong, for clear principles of fairness, and for protection of the weak will always be honorable; but to promote tolerance simply for the sake of tolerance is nothing more than a parody on paving that highway to Hades with good intentions.  It can only lead to a culture where no one is accountable, no one is decisive, and our people simply devolve down to a level of civilized anarchy.  Could that be the “new normal” that we hear so much about these days?  When we as a society consider tolerance, it is essential that we first examine the true value of that being tolerated before we debate the actual practice of tolerating it.

Too Big To Heal?  Over the last few years, a popular phrase has been “Too Big to Fail”; the implication being that the wide-ranging effects of failure outweigh the costs of saving the entity, even if saving requires extraordinary and preferential methods.  To put a different spin on the phrase, it is entirely possible that our government has become “Too Big to Heal”; the implication being that it is too massive and complex to clean up and it must be downsized to make it “manageable”. 

The recent explosion of scandals involving this Administration seems to add credence to this theory.  To his credit, Obama never made any pretense that his intention was anything other than a nanny state, replete with an ever-expanding government; any person who was paying attention knows this.  Unfortunately, he has followed through on his intentions and has only been marginally slowed by a Republican House of Representatives.  Obama’s masterful use of executive power and action has largely accomplished by fiat what he could not accomplish legislatively.   Only now, with the sheet being pulled back on the AG, the IRS, HHS, etc. are we beginning to realize how widespread the tentacles of Executive Power have spread throughout our society.  But let us be honest here….Our burgeoning government with all of its layers, redundancy, and hidden compartments didn’t just get that way with Obama’s election.   Every administration since Reagan has contributed, in varying degrees, to this decay.  For all of his talk about compassionate conservatism, the size of government exploded under George W. Bush and has only accelerated under the tutelage of the One. 

The fact is that the corruption we see with the combination of past (and current) administration employees/appointees, retiring Senators and Congressmen, Wall Street, corporate America, and international banking has been strengthening for decades and has become so commonplace that a large portion of it is hidden by the sheer bulk of government.  Until we can shrink the government down, eliminate some of the dark nooks and crannies, bring every single department under some type of scrutiny and accountability, and eliminate the opportunities for corruption that exist today, it is doubtful that we will ever have anything faintly resembling a government worthy of respect, trust,  and praise.  We need to trim out the brush, consolidate the missions, eliminate the trash, and bring in the healing effects of sunshine.   Only then will the corrupt individuals from both parties realize that there is no place to hide and they will either serve honorably or get out.