Anti-Trump Leaders Must Be Viewed with Suspicion

By Eddie Howell

The Democratic Party of today bears little resemblance to the party of previous years. Although its power-grabbing ways can be traced further back than Woodrow Wilson (later, FDR and LBJ), its present unholy alliance with international globalism and anti-capitalism/socialism/communism surpasses any radical tendencies of previous generations.

There are some Democrats who love America and want to preserve our nation and its constitution. But too many have joined the hysterical push to remove Donald Trump at all costs. Donald Trump represents the main resistance to globalism and the main political force for American sovereignty and liberty. Two big heroes of Democrat radicalism today (besides the Clintons) are the late Saul Alinsky and the still-kicking international criminal George Soros. Their track records speak for themselves to anyone who wishes to pay attention.

It is the Democrats and their cronies the mainstream media who have been producing and promoting images and talk of violence against President Trump and his supporters. Their approval of Black Lives Matter and street violence demonstrate their lack of restraint. The shooting of Rep. Scalise at the baseball practice field was a predictable consequence of the Democrats' “resistance” agenda. Their demonic effort to remove Trump from office is a far cry from civil political debate and discourse. No reasonable discussion can be had with many of these radicalized zealots. They have become like terrorists and terrorism supporters when it comes to Mr. Trump.

I am not connected with the organization of Alex Jones (Infowars.com), but I recognize there is truth in what he says about the situation we face in America. The following video illustrates some of the things this article is about, especially in regard to the mainstream media and their very distrurbing efforts against President Trump. His tweets in response are mild considering the unending barrage of fake news trash thrown his way daily.

The leftists have insulted Mr. Trump's supporters, virtually half the country, without let-up. The are not concerned with anyone or anything other than their own rabid political goal, in which they're joined by Hollywood celebrities, and, worse, by academics who are corrupting their young charges in many colleges, universities, and public schools. President Trump and his supporters must remain steadfast and not give in. They must also be aware of the security risks the Democrats and their mindless followers pose to Mr. Trump, and his supporters, and the general public. Rioters must be dealt with decisively, and sufficient force must be brought to bear just to maintain public safety. People who beat up others must be punished. College students and professors who commit crimes must be brought to justice.

Citizens should demand that colleges that abuse the rights of their students, faculty, invited guests, or the public should be sanctioned by defunding, boycotting, and other appropriate means. What the globalist elites want, and what the hysterical anti-Trumpers are working toward (some unwittingly) is somehow forcing Trump from office, then getting our country put under some level of martial law. The globalist elites do not care what the human costs of all this will be. The public stands in the way of their takeover. Provoking war is one option they are willing to consider. Will there be an American Tiananmen Square? Those string-pullers at the top wouldn't mind. They could put the FEMA camps we read about to use as prisons and concentration camps for our citizens without batting an eye.

The globalists and their dupes have no regard for Americans' well being. The gang members and jihadists could be used, and some other countries have no particular regard for America if they're not getting what they want from us.

At this point, we do have a chance to prevail over chaos and destruction. The fact that Donald Trump, and not Hillary Clinton, was elected represents an opportunity for America to be preserved, albeit through some weird and troubling times. There must be some recognition of the dangers by the American people, many of whom want little to do with politics. But we must keep in mind what some wise person said: “You may not take an interest in politics, but politics may very well take an interest in you.” I do not believe the worst is inevitable. But the threat is there.

The American people still have some regard for what America is supposed to represent: freedom, virtue, justice, and truth.

People need to be praying every day for America, for our president, his administration and supporters, and for those deceived citizens who are making themselves adversaries of our nation. As we celebrate Independence Day, we should reflect on its real meaning to our country, and the great things that are at stake.

With the Clintons, Dishonesty Is Just Part of the Problem

By Eddie Howell

The documentary motion picture “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer, based on his book of that name is available for free viewing on YouTube

There's an old one-liner that goes, “I've read so much about the dangers of smoking that I've decided to give up reading.” That's sort of how I'm beginning to feel about politics in America these days – I've read so much about the fawning so-called “journalists” who love Hillary, and the lying liberals who seize on every opportunity, real or imagined, to demean Donald Trump, it's just disgusting.

Trump has a very good chance of becoming our next president if the left doesn't assassinate him.

I watched the documentary “Clinton Cash” on YouTube the other day, and I must say, it seemed very factual and well-sourced. I plan to read the book as soon as it arrives at my house from Amazon.

[I also plan to see Dinesh D'Souza's documentary “Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” currently in theaters. It is based on D'Souza's book of the same name.]

Based on the film “Clinton Cash,” and what has been reported over the years about the scandal-a-week Clintons, it seems to me that Hillary is like Al Capone, only on a much larger scale, and probably a lot meaner. She almost makes Capone seem like a philanthropist by comparison.

The scale of Clinton corruption and hypocrisy is breath-taking. By selling influence and virtually inviting bribes, directly, and through their “charitable” foundation, the Clintons have amassed great wealth for themselves and their friends through shady, and often taxpayer-funded, schemes. In Haiti, for example, with Bill representing the United Nations' and Hillary the United States' relief efforts after the devastating earthquake several years ago, great promises of rebuilding were made. Large contracts were awarded to Clinton cronies, but very little helpful rebuilding work was actually done. But the Clintons and their friends made a great deal of money at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, using the people of Haiti, then the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.

Similarly in Africa and elsewhere, the Clintons have praised and propped up tyrannical dictators in order to get lucrative concessions awarded to their friends, friends who have directly paid them six-figure speaking fees and/or contributed millions to their foundation. And so it goes. As the film points out, they have often back-tracked (flip-flopped) on some of their cherished liberal principles to do some of these deals – things like environmental concerns, human rights abuses, and other issues. As is often said, “follow the money,” and Schweizer and friends have done that and it turns out that many millions of dollars have found their way to the Clintons personally and to their foundation in very questionable circumstances.

The Clintons are adept at saying the right things, but if one observes what they actually do, one must wonder how they get away with these things.

America has seen some rich, profit-making families, but never on this kind of scale, profiting from influence peddling on the basis of past and present government offices held. It is shocking and would be much more so if more people were paying attention.

But dishonest activities are not the only, and not even the main, thing that makes the Clintons a blight on America. Their political agenda is, I believe far more dangerous than their crooked money-making schemes. They are right in step with the globalist elites who are working toward a one-world government that holds tight control over everyone and everything. Agenda 21, anyone? Saul Alinsky?

Their kind of “progressivism” (Hillary's that is, not what President Bill Clinton practiced) threatens doom for the American ideal of liberty. The Bill of Rights would soon be out with the daily trash, starting with the Second Amendment, then the First, and so on, until our “rights” would be defined by a statement of political correctness, in line with what the United Nations, Bilderberg Group, etc., want.

Hillary, as president, would double down on Obama's policy failures (though from the Progressives' standpoint, successes) in health care, taxes, “social justice.” race-baiting, etc. She would continue to push onerous taxes (but ever-greater borrowing), reams of regulations, massive legislation that no one reads, all aiming at total control over the local neighborhoods from police to housing to land use. Their ideal would be a docile, government-dependent population living in small spaces, driving small cars that cannot go far or fast, or, better, no cars, just public transportation. Eventually the majority of people would be on food stamps and in poverty, maybe getting “free college,” but with nothing meaningful to use it for. The elites would be the exceptions, living like the Obamas live now in terms of luxury and a degree of freedom. Eventually, dissidents would be placed in re-education (FEMA?) camps or just eliminated entirely.

All that sounds (and is) extreme, but it would take place over several years and a few generations, little by little, as the government became able to neutralize opposition in order to implement it. At some point, even “elites” who were no longer helpful would be gotten rid of also. These things would happen gradually but methodically. “Progressives” have pursued their agenda since the days of Woodrow Wilson and before, and history shows that they flirted seriously with fascism and Soviet communism along the way, and have been enamored of collectivism in general, and great executive power in particular. As a present-day example, Obama, often and on many issues, shows his disdain for the government-limiting Constitution, bypassing Congress and ruling by decree.

Conservatives have complained and even sued, but Congress generally has shown little to no inclination to seriously stand up to Obama's usurpations. And Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan et al wonder why people are upset with the establishment, including the Republican establishment?

Personally, I say away from the GOP with those Republicans who will vote for Hillary. Their days of GOP influence will soon be over. Trump is not everyone's choice for president, but he is the only one with a chance to beat Hillary. The fate of the nation is at stake. The next election and the next few years will show whether America is willing to stand up for her principles, and whether Western Civilization is deemed by the people in all Western countries to be worth saving. To the extent that the globalists have their way here and in the West generally, there will be large Muslim population growth, greatly increased terrorism, much more racial strife and the obliteration of America as a sovereign nation. There will be more unconstitutional treaties and regulations, bad trade deals, crime, poverty, and general misery. That's if the globalists win. The Brexit vote and the Donald Trump presidential campaign represent a movement that is probably our last best chance to stop globalism and preserve America as America.

ADDENDUM: HOW THE GLOBALISTS' PLANS MIGHT FIT INTO

END-TIME BIBLE PROPHECY

Some people who might be labeled “conspiracy theorists” have said that the Bible-prophesied Antichrist (“The Beast”) and false prophet of Revelation have appeared already, and they name who they believe it is. I'm not prepared to think that, although things seem to be moving in such a manner, that if left unchecked, it will soon be feasible for these satanic characters to appear. See Revelation, Chapter 13. Consider: Technology is already in place that could be used to implement the “mark of the beast,” insofar as not allowing anyone to buy or sell unless he or she possessed some required physical or electronic “mark” is concerned. Two things pointing toward this are (1) the cashless society – everyone could buy or sell only through a universal banking system, with every transaction recorded, monitored, and fully traceable, and (2) negative interest rates, which would preclude earning anything from savings or checking deposits, with balances gradually and selectively dwindling, so as to reduce or eliminate economic power of account holders. Negative interest rates are currently being used in some places, and the idea of a cashless society is being talked up, and seems to appeal to some people. What's not in place yet is the religious aspect, whereby people will worship the Antichrist, which is what the “mark” would signify. Scripture says that those who refuse to take the mark will be put to death, and those who take the mark can never be saved, but would spend eternity in hell. Our secular-minded world would greatly be deceived into believing the Antichrist's lie. But this is how the Antichrist could come to power – through a one-world government, trying to take control over everyone and everything. Of course, they couldn't do it entirely, but great damage would be done and millions of souls forever lost, and many saved only by giving up their physical lives. Only the return of Jesus Christ will prevent all humanity from being wiped out. But He will return and prevent this total destruction, and set up His righteous kingdom.

Many Christians believe these things will happen soon. It may be fairly soon, or not for a considerable time. One thing certain is that no one knows when Christ will return. When He does, it will be unexpected. Another thing certain is that He will return. Therefore, Christians are advised to be ready.

Needed: Effective Opposition to the Democrats by the GOP

President and Mrs. Obama

By Eddie Howell

Ever-increasingly for the last several years, it has become evident that people who truly cannot be trusted with political power have been the ones in charge. Barack Obama has shown himself to be the communist-mentored socialist-fascist that he actually is, as well as, it seems, a race-baiting hate monger not much different from his “spiritual” mentor “Rev.” Jeremiah Wright. As a Christian, the president is a strange specimen indeed. If all this weren't enough, he has actively worked to undermine the American economy with his crackpot schemes on “climate change” (such as the failed cap and trade bill, and now the evil new EPA regulations), weird financial regulations that keep “too-big-to-fail” in place while making things tougher on smaller banks.

His administration has seen a mind-boggling increase in public debt (which can never be paid) and annual deficits. He has been a far bigger promise breaker and liar than Bill Clinton, which is really saying something. (“If you like your health-care plan you can keep your plan,” just for starters.)

Jonathan Gruber should be thanked for shedding some light on the thinking of the administration during the development of Obamacare: it was designed to be sold to the “stupid” American people, who were smart enough to recognize that it was not a good plan, and mostly did not support it. Yet they suffered from it in millions of cases by receiving a severe downgrade of their insurance coverage and are set to receive even more insulting and injurious blows from it as time goes on.

Obama presided over an IRS that deliberately went after his political enemies. His claims of ignorance are not believable. He fiddled while the American outpost in Benghazi burned. Nor did his secretary of state Ms. Clinton bother to respond to repeated requests for security help there. And why was Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi on September 11 anyway? That episode in itself should have resulted in deep apologies and major resignations, but the administration basically blew it off, and lied to the families of the dead Americans that some cockamamie video was responsible, then went after the producer of the video with a vengeance.

Political careers should have ended over the items mentioned above. Obama and his cronies have shown themselves unfit to serve in public office. And so far, I haven't even mentioned Michelle Obama's school lunch disasters, by which it's hard not to think of her as just mean. And her endless vacations. I have suggested before that the president and his family be budgeted for about a billion dollars annually for vacations in the hope that they would stay out of the country more of the time.

* * *

Meanwhile, the GOP has some troubles of its own. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, the leadership doesn't like their base. Just when Republicans, fresh from strong mid-term election victories, need to be at their best, the leaders are afraid that something conservative might happen if the dissenters get their way and that would, well, mess up some things for the cocktail-circuit “leaders.” Apparently, most of the House members didn't want to upset the apple cart, so they were contented to support Speaker John Boehner. I would prefer to see Louie Gohmert as speaker. But all that is minor stuff in the big picture compared to the disaster the Democrats have foisted upon us.

Patrick Buchanan points out that Democrats have plenty to worry about regarding their people, some of whom, including the president, to the chagrin of most Democratic voters, miss few opportunities to stir up racial turmoil, and who regard “Rev.” Al Sharpton as a guiding light on racial matters. Most Americans, as Buchanan says, have sided with the police (even more so after two officers were murdered in New York) and against the rioters whose “protests” were often far from “peaceful,” and against DeBlasio, Sharpton, etc.*

So, except for the things mentioned here and some others, like ISIS terrorists, Iranian leaders playing Obama for a sucker in the worst way, the mistreatment of Israel, and a good many other issues, things aren't too bad. Republicans have an opportunity to show some backbone and some leadership in Washington if they so choose. I hope they have the courage to be the opposition party they're supposed to be.

*Paragraph updated 01/13/15. Highlighted portion was corrected. Previously, it read as though I was painting Democrats in general as race hustlers, which, of course, they are not. The leaders who are represent a problem for the party.

Rick Santorum for President

Rick Santorum (official photo)

After some deliberation, and even after finding many more favorable than unfavorable things about all the four remaining GOP candidates, I have decided to give my endorsement, for what it’s worth, to former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Unfortunately, Gov. Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have harmed each other and themselves, mostly by Romney’s unrelenting negative attacks on Gingrich, and a backlash against those attacks. It is unfortunate that the negatives have been so intense. The fact is that any of the four candidates would be far, far superior in the White House to President Obama.

I like Santorum best. He does try to distinguish himself from the others without the negative personal attacks, and tries to focus on opposing Obama. He is a man who identifies with working Americans and middle-class voters. He is not an elitist. He is a politician who understands how our government works, and what needs to be changed.

He is down to earth about his agenda, not all over the place with moon colonies, etc.

Since he, for now, is the leading contender, he is also becoming a leading target for the Obama campaign. Obama has no record to run on; he only has personal attacks and class warfare. He has been in a constant campaign mode, and demonstrated poor skills for governing. He has a confused and dangerous foreign policy, and a desire to disarm America and build up her enemies. His economic policies are either deliberately destructive or he is completely inept and economically illiterate. It has to be one or the other. His argument that things were much worse when he took office than “anyone” thought only demonstrates the incompetence of Obama and his advisers in the realm of economics. It’s similar to Bill Clinton’s explanation of why he had to pull back on a promised “middle-class tax cut,” but at least Clinton didn’t give us a term of near-depression conditions.

Of course, Obama isn’t responsible for anything that has gone wrong; he points fingers at many in order to prove it. If he can’t be held accountable for anything, why do we want him to be in charge?

But back to Santorum. He is a family man who has gotten as far as he has in the campaign with diligent and dogged campaigning. His campaign is dirt poor compared to those of Romney and Obama, but gets a lot of mileage out of each dollar. Money will increase for him as polls build in his favor.

Here is Santorum’s CPAC speech:

The Editors at National Review Online write (02/13/2012),

Santorum has been conducting himself rather impressively in his moments of triumph and avoiding characteristic temptations. He is doing his best to keep the press from dismissing him as merely a “social-issues candidate.” His recent remark that losing his Senate seat in 2006 taught him the importance of humility suggests an appealing self-awareness.…

Also at NRO, Quin Hillyer writes (02/06/12)

Santorum rates particularly high on personal character, on sincerity, and on steadfastness of principle. Those are bedrock traits that, over a long campaign, help secure a voter’s comfort level with a candidate. A comparison with Reagan is in order here. While Santorum certainly hasn’t shown Reagan’s preternatural communication skills or sheer — almost magical — personal likeability, what matters in a race against a weak incumbent in a weak economy is that voters give themselves the psychological go-ahead for changing something as important as the president.

John Hayward at Human Events quotes Santorum’s remarks on Fox News about the Obama Administrations decision to require Catholic institutions to offer insurance coverage for contraception:

The Catholic Church specifically teaches that birth control pills, as well the morning-after pill which is not just a birth control pill but what clearly causes abortions, as well as sterilization, which is something that the church specifically teaches against. Here you have a situation where you have this tricky play, the government says that they can give you right. They'll give you the right to health care. Be careful, because then they can tell you how to exercise that right against your First Amendment rights, against you ability to practice your faith….

So, now, not only violating the freedom of religion, now the freedom of speech, this is the problem when government tells you that they can give you things. They can take it away. But even worse, they can tell you how they're going to exercise this new right that they've given you, consistent with their values instead of the values guaranteed in our Constitution.

Hayward also observes,

Santorum also appears to be winning a lot of Tea Party support away from Gingrich in the next couple of primary races.  The Tea Party means energy.  They won’t just vote for you – they’ll work for you.

Liberals, who seem to feel it’s their responsibility to be easily offended, accused Santorum of being “over the line” with his remarks about Obama’s theology. Santorum later clarified that he was referring to Obama’s “world view,” not his faith. Of course it remains true that Obama’s theology was influenced by Jeremiah Wright’s radical anti-white, anti-Jewish, black-liberation views. And it can hardly be questioned that Obama’s view is far from that of a leader seeking to follow the Constitution.

You can read the comments on any Yahoo article about Santorum and see the venom and bigotry the Obama supporters are throwing at Santorum. Santorum should see this as a sign of success – he’s annoying the right people, those who share the secularist, anti-Christian views of the president.

Fairly soon after Obama took office, seeing his agenda starting to unfold, I wrote that Americans would be looking for a “return to normalcy,” much as the nation did by electing Warren G. Harding after the oppressive “Progressive” fascism of Woodrow Wilson. Harding was politically like a breath of fresh air, although he had problems with some of his appointees, and died in office. He was followed by Calvin Coolidge, probably the best president of the twentieth century other than Ronald Reagan. He kept government largely out of the way of the economy, balanced the budget, and presided over a period of prosperity.

I think Rick Santorum offers the closest thing at present to a badly needed “return to normalcy” after Obama has nearly wrecked our economy and skewed everything toward big-government socialism, always seeking higher taxes and more spending, not to mention his upside-down foreign policy adventures. Santorum understands the need for fiscal sanity, which presently we do not have, thanks to Obama, and he knows who our allies and enemies are. He is a family man of proven character and political success. He would be a leader instead of “leading from behind.” Mr. Romney boasts that he is the only one of the four GOP candidates that hasn’t served in Washington, as though that is a disqualifying experience. Santorum responds that it doesn’t hurt to know the people in government who have advanced the conservative cause, and to have some insight into how things work in Congress. If Mr. Romney were correct, he would be unqualified to serve a second term, having become one, were he elected, who had “served in Washington.” Unlike Obama and his crew, who are bent on ruling, not serving, Santorum demonstrates greatly more of a servant spirit than any other candidate except possibly Ron Paul.

I hope Santorum will pick up many of the supporters of Bachmann and Cain, and I think he already has done some of that. I am not Catholic, but I respect Santorum, and any politician who is honest about how his faith informs his work. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be worth practicing. Those who worry about an anti-contraception mandate need not do so; no state is prepared to impose one, nor allow the federal government to do so. More worrisome is Obama’s contraception insurance mandate, which I predict will not stand.

America needs a GOP majority in both houses of Congress and a Republican president who will undo many of Obama’s misguided and unconstitutional policies fairly quickly, and also provide a workable governing structure for the future which will respect and preserve American liberty and allow prosperity to return. When Obama had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, he did not focus on the economy or employment, but chose instead to push his unconstitutional, socialist policies, such as Obamacare and cap and trade. These policies involved back-room deals, thousand-plus-page bills no one read, and strict party line votes.

A win by Santorum would also be a strong corrective to the “Republican establishment,” which has failed to object to Obamaism strongly enough. Santorum said, “We are not a wing of the Republican Party, we are the Republican Party.” May the campaign and the November elections prove it so. 

Cain’s Current Skirmish Shouldn’t Stop Him

Herman Cain      Photo: Dreamstime.com

A new industry has sprung up, started by Politico and their numerous articles about sexual harassment accusations against Herman Cain. Many articles appeared, articles which contained no names or specific allegations, even noting that the supposedly offending actions were “not overtly sexual.” The writers were protecting the accusers, who had signed agreements of confidentiality after agreeing to cash settlements from the National Restaurant Association.

Now, a woman has come forward to accuse Cain of something specific, which supposedly happened in 1997, but was not dealt with at that time. The allegations against Cain appear to be politically motivated attacks, likely dug up by political opponents, and eagerly pounced upon by the liberal media, anxious to destroy Cain’s candidacy even though numerous articles were printed, stating no facts, offering no evidence and no justification.

Of course, liberal Reuters was quick to find three criminal lawyers who agree that Cain could have been accused of sex abuse by his latest accuser, if she had chosen to press charges, though prosecutors likely wouldn’t have wanted to take up this type of he-said-she-said case. In any event, it would be time barred now.


Herman Cain’s campaign success is definitely not liked by liberals or by some members of the Republican establishment, not to mention his GOP rivals. But this whole scenario smacks of the “politics of personal destruction” favored by the socialist liberals. Much like the vicious and spurious attacks on Sarah Palin.

Most Americans have enough of a sense of justice to understand that an accusation is not enough. Cain confidently maintains that these allegations are baseless, and his supporters have responded with increased financial contributions to his campaign. His poll numbers are holding up well.

Whether Cain’s enemies can do him real damage through these allegations remains to be seen, but a great many people see it, correctly, I think, as a media circus designed to cut down a black conservative who is also an unconventional candidate. It’s their choice of methods to avoid dealing with the serious problems for which he is offering solutions.

For media liberals, this circus is hypocritical, since there is no actual evidence to support the allegations, while they went all out to protect Bill Clinton, who actually was guilty of sexual improprieties. As Rush Limbaugh has said, for liberals, this type of behavior is a resume enhancement.

Scott Whitlock at Media Research Center reported on Friday, November 4, that networks had aired “a staggering 63 stories in just four and a half days.”

Further,

The ABC reporter [Brian Ross] also talked to Ricki Seidman, who he simply identified as a "political operative." Ross left out the fact that Seidman has worked for Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis and other Democrats.

Of Cain's accusers, who are anonymous, the political operative sympathized, "They've been called by all kinds of names already by people who have no idea who they are." (Ross did explain that Seidman worked with Anita Hill when she testified against Clarence Thomas.)

Of course, since there’s a woman who has come forward to accuse Cain and is represented by Gloria Allred (who else?), Cain’s enemies probably think they’ve sealed the deal. But if this doesn’t work, they’ll try something else. Cain has a thick-enough skin that he will weather this, and he knows he can expect every kind of phony charge the liberal media can blow up against him.

All this obscures Cain’s debate/discussion with Newt Gingrich, carried on C-SPAN, which was quite a refreshing change from the usual debate format. Cain demonstrated considerable knowledge of the entitlement issues, as did Gingrich. So far, Cain hasn’t missed any speeches or events. He continues to hammer away on his message. I’m listening, and I am sure a lot of others are. (See brief interview dated November 6 here).


I’m about ready to send a check to his campaign. Through his campaign, he’s earned my respect and admiration. I believe him when he says the charges are baseless, and there doesn’t seem to be anyone proving him wrong. Guilty until proven innocent? I don’t think so.

Governing the “Ungovernable”

Some liberal observers, noticing President Barack Obama’s lack of success in advancing his signature agenda items, “health care reform” and cap and trade, are theorizing (or concluding) that America has become ungovernable.

Newsweek takes up this matter, blaming “obstructionist Republicans, spineless Democrats and an increasingly incoherent electorate” for America’s supposed ungovernability. [1]

The fact that “health care reform” is not yet a done deal is supposed to illustrate the problem. All liberals agree that Obamacare is sorely needed and would greatly relieve a lot of suffering. Yet the Republicans won’t get on board with it, and a majority of Americans, having been informed about it (since the Democrats’ initial dead-of-night, unread-bill effort to pass it didn’t quite work) selfishly don’t want to lose their current coverage, with which they are moderately satisfied, and pay substantially more in taxes.

It’s true that people don’t want to lose their coverage and pay high taxes for the proposed plan. It’s not selfishness, but rational self interest. And, people are becoming more aware of the Constitution and the federal government’s numerous efforts at violating it, thus curtailing freedom. Republicans simply don’t want their name attached to such an offensive piece of legislation, and some may even recognize that this whole area is outside the federal government’s legitimate constitutional authority.

Another consideration is that the Obama Administration has focused on getting their socialist agenda items enacted when the public’s concern was jobs and the economy, about which nothing successful was being done. There was no consensus on cap and trade or the health care effort, both of which could be seen as hurting the economy.

It’s not that America is ungovernable. It simply lacks executive and legislative leadership.

Charles Krauthammer remarks on the similarity of these most recent complaints of ungovernability to the Carter years: “In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say the office had become unmanageable and was too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president's own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.” Then he shows how, in contrast to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter was not able to provide the needed leadership. [2]

Thence the “malaise.” Are we going to be hearing that term again soon?

Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics faults Obama for two errors: First putting Nancy Pelosi (too far left) in charge of writing the health care legislation, and second, insisting on comprehensive reforms. “If the truly great Henry Clay could not pass the Compromise of 1850 through the Congress in a single package, what made Barack Obama think he could sign comprehensive energy and health care reforms?” [3]

As Krauthammer points out, economist Paul Krugman even blames the filibuster, although in the G.W. Bush days, he warned against “extremists” trying to get rid of the procedure, when liberals were using it to block Bush’s judicial nominees. [4]

It seems clear that liberals, very reluctant to acknowledge the demonstrated lack of leadership ability in their top government officials, must cast blame elsewhere: the public, the Republicans, and the basic structure of government (i.e., the Constitution), for their failures.

When Republicans return to power, perhaps they will remember how to lead. They have some good examples to look to. Of course, so do the Democrats.


[1] Michael Cohen, “America the Ungovernable,” 01/25/2010, Newsweek.

[2] Charles Krauthammer, “It’s vogue again to declare America ungovernable,” 02/20/10, Houston Chronicle,

[3] Jay Cost, “America Is Not Ungovernable” 02/08/2010, Real Clear Politics.

[4] Krauthammer, see [2].

Photo: Dreamstime.com