Remembering Ann

She was born in 1919 into what might now be seen as dysfunctional circumstances. After surviving a pillar-to-post childhood, she came of age just in time for the great depression. She had two marriages, which produced four sons, and once they were raised, she turned her talents to the business world with a run as a Boston banker. Through all the twists and turns that life threw her way, she persevered with optimism, an independent determination, and her steadfast faith.

She would not see herself as a candidate for canonization, quick to admit to a fair share of shortcomings.  But, fortunately for us all, the judgement of one’s life depends not on the opinions of mere mortals.  A year ago, just a few months after her 95^th birthday, she left us for a much better place. As we gathered to say our farewells, the tributes came in from family, friends and all those whose lives she touched over a long and eventful life.  She mothered four sons and grand-mothered nine grandchildren all the while cherishing their love with a quiet pride.

So, tomorrow, stop for a moment and remember, perhaps with a brief prayer, Ann, aka Grams. Her Mass card prayer could well be her parting message.

Beware of Gifts from the Post

Amid much mumbling and fumbling in an attempt to rationalize an editorial cartoon portraying the daughters of Ted Cruz, ages 4 and 7,  as mechanical monkeys, the Washington Post pulled the item and attempted to characterize the episode as a "gift" to Cruz.

 

 



Perhaps this sorry episode is an indication that Ted's candidacy is continuing to gain traction, eliciting
a move to increased desperation within the liberal media. Could this be fueled, to some extent, by the View's recent endorsement of the Cruz candidacy?  Stay tuned.

Ted Cruz for President

We have been entertained for some time now by the spectacle of all the Republican candidates for president. Now the time for tough decisions is upon us. The debates might have some entertainment value, but  the questions asked, and the answers provided, are often meant to elicit verbal fireworks rather than analysis of the issues. While we might wait for the results of the Iowa caucus and the first of the primaries, it may then be too late to decide if we are to help our candidate do well in those early contests.

One suggested approach would be to focus on one candidate on the basis to which he, or she, best represents the positions which we feel are most important in the next Commander in Chief, rather than who might fare better or worse against an assumed democratic candidate. The qualifier "best represents" is operative. It is hard to find a perfect fit. This may seem a bit simplistic, but it might just define an effective decision timeline, rather than the present tail-chasing punditry.

What exactly are the key issues of the campaign? As in so many other things, it depends upon what we, as individuals, think they are.

Clearly, Safety for the Homeland has emerged as a hot topic as a result of recent terrorist attacks. When the U.S. Attorney General is more concerned about possible hate speech rather than the victims of the San Bernardino attacks, and when our elected leaders are unable, or unwilling, to accurately label those who would harm us, there is clearly a disconnect.

Immigration is an especially thorny issue as it covers a number of facets of concern.  The governments continued unwillingness to enforce our existing laws, has helped continue the flow of anonymous illegal entrants, which raises, at least two concerns: which of these are evil-doers intending to do us harm, and which are seeking only to clamp on to our expanding array of social programs. And not for a minute should we close our hearts to those simply seeking a better way of life for themselves and their families, and possessing a strong work ethic to achieve that goal.
Sorting this out may, in fact, require the building of a wall to secure our borders, but in any event it needs considerable improvement to the enforcement of our existing laws over the benign neglect being practiced by the current administration. The reality is that there are some bad actors in the world, and we had better do a much better job of stopping them at our borders.

Yesterday, Congress  passed an $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that increases spending $112 billion over the next two years, blowing through the spending caps. Democrats rejoiced while Republicans scrambled to identify those precious few slivers of gains toward Republican priorities contained in the bill. With the deficit fast approaching $19 Trillion, it seems unreal that Congress could possibly hatch such a fiscal bomb.  BTW, don't the Republicans control both houses? Ted Cruz voted against this bill.

While the growing disregard of the U.S. Constitution dates back to the emergence of the progressive movement in the early 1900's, this trend has gone into hyper-space under the current administration, with its elective enforcement of the law and its fast-draw use of the executive edict. Hand-in-glove with this trend is the unchecked growth of federal agencies, many of which operate with little or no oversight from either the congress or the executive branch. In a country founded upon the principle of government of the people, by the people and for the people, we find ourselves asking: who's in charge?

Clearly there are more issues than these three broad themes, and we plan to focus on them in future posts. At the same time, as we try to narrow the field, it is becoming more and more clear, that we need to identify candidates with the strength and determination to push for conservative ideals in government and stand up against the mindless drift of progressive ideas.  In past years we have favored candidates with a willingness to "work across the aisle" and strive for compromise with those on the left. It has become apparent, that, with but a few exceptions, this has been a losing game. We need a strong candidate who will stand up for our principles.

As a suggested starting point, we submit that Ted Cruz may well be the candidate we need to represent conservative Republican principles in November. Watch  a SPEECH he recently delivered at the Heritage Foundation. Read his book, A time for Truth, and rather than reactively looking for reasons to not support him, test his background and talents against the criteria outlined above. He may well be the one who can help us take back our country.

Too Big to Jail?

The new black?

During the turbulent years of forced busing in Boston, politician, Louise Day Hicks coined the innocuous-sounding tag line, "You know where I stand". But to anyone with more than a passing interest in those troubled times would know, these five words spoke volumes.

Yesterday, in a N Y Times editorial, presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, made her case for turbo-charging the government's efforts at "Reining in Wall Street"


In her own words:

"As president, I would not only veto any legislation that would weaken financial reform, but I would also fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond Dodd-Frank."

In other words, should Hillary adopt Mrs. Hicks' hash tag, we would surely know where she stands, and that is, of course, athwart the U. S. financial system flogging the progressive goal of more and more government regulation and control.

IHOW, cont.

"I would appoint tough, independent regulators and ensure that both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are independently funded — as other critical regulators are now — so that they can do their jobs without political interference."

So let's see if we have this straight:  we expand the growth of independent federal agencies under little or no control, fiscal, or otherwise, from Congress or the Executive Branch, creating and enforcing their own policies, rules and regulations as they go along. That's the ticket?


Yada yada yada:

"Finally, executives need to be held more accountable. No one should be too big to jail."

And how about those tough independent regulators. We are all waiting to see how the investigation into Hillary's mishandling of her emails while Secretary of State will plays out when those tough independent regulators at the Dept. of Justice finally decide what legal remedies are appropriate. General Petraeus, take note.

As they say on those TV commercials, wait, there's more:
      

  "And we need to reform stock market rules to ensure equal access to information,       increase transparency and minimize conflicts of interest (emphasis added)."

For your bed time  reading, we recommend Peter Schweitzer's book, Clinton Cash, The untold story of how and why foreign governments and businesses helped make Bill and Hillary rich, as described on Amazon.com

"In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions of dollars in legal debt. Since then, they’ve earned over $130 million. Where did the money come from? Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs.

 Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments. His book follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government.

Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west” fringe of the global economy. Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office."

And we thought  "Bimbo eruption control, cattle futures and turning the Lincoln bedroom into an upscale Holiday Inn, were troubling. Hillary for president?  To quote Nancy Pelosi in a different context, "Are you serious"?

Masters of the Universe?

Where is Tom Wolfe when we need him?


According to the Harvard Crimson, there are 12 undergraduate residences (we dare not call them dorms) on the Cambridge campus,  each overseen by a faculty member, who has long been called the House master.  Recently, the masters of the 12 have unanimously agreed to change their title to a new title soon to be announced. The concern here is that the term 'master' has a subtle connection to the era of slavery.

Ronald Sullivan, master of Winthrop House:

"we cannot ignore the fact that the term master has a particular salience in our culture given the very real brutal history of slavery."

Harvard University is brain-trust central and is chock full of smart people. So when it decides to make a change to the school's administrative process, the rest of us tend to pay attention.  And while the era of human slavery was clearly a dark chapter of our history,  this one seems a stretch.

Admittedly, we don't know what goes on inside the Harvard Houses, but the title, master, does have an authoritative tone. At he same time, the word has a much broader meaning, especially within academia. Many schools have a head masters rather than principals. It seems clear that this means head teacher rather than implied evil powers, especially given the strength of the teacher unions  What of master degrees?  Will MBA's become *BA's? And as the trends of Academia seep out to the great unwashed, what cultural icons could find themselves in hot water? Surely not the Masters Golf Tournament. Be still the hearts of Augusta.

The problems associated with race relations in our society are, unfortunately, only too real and troubling. Is this decision of the Harvard House masters part of the solution or just PC run amok?

Local Opportunity-Save The Date

With all the focus on the crowded Republican presidential field, it is easy to overlook the opportunity to make a difference at the local level. We are, of course, talking about the Massachusetts 9th Congressional District.

In 2014, there was also a crowded field in the 9th Congressional race. Unfortunately, we were unable to close ranks after a tumultuous primary, and the democratic incumbent prevailed. Mark Alliegro was one of those candidates that fought hard for visibility. Unlike the other candidates, Mark has continued to carry the fight to the next election, now less than a year away. For those right-thinking voters of the 9th, Mark's message is worth hearing.

On Tuesday, December 15th at 6:30 P.M., Mark is holding  a "Big Tent Event" in Plymouth(see details below). Republicans, Independents and everyone else concerned about the sad state of affairs in Washington should come out and hear Mark's Message.

Regular, Irregular and Ultra-regular Regulations

James Gattuso

Thanks to James Gattuso, of The Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal, for highlighting the issue of the Obama Administrations' plans for new regulations to be issued by the Federal Agencies. Missed it? Don't feel bad, the release was strategically timed for the Friday before Thanksgiving on November 23rd, when most of us had our attention focused elsewhere. Turns out that this has been the pattern  for such releases over the past several years. There is only one reason for such timing, and that is NOT to maximize public exposure. You would hide this lantern under a bushel basket too if you were announcing over 2,000 new regulations in process, with over 144 of these bad boys projected to cost at least $100 million. Click  HERE to read Gattuso's article, but for a real trip through the looking glass click again HERE for a look at the Current Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, (sic)  which will allow you to track regulation activity back to the specific federal agency of the 50 or so that are listed. Content Warning! this is not for the faint of heart.

Charles Murray

Charles Murray, writing in the Sixtieth Anniversary Issue  of National Review, in an article entitled, The Regulators' Yoke, reviews the growth of federal regulations over the past sixty years, but, perhaps most troubling, perhaps is the extent to which so much of the federal government now acts independently.

"And so, we now live in a world in which Congress passes laws with grandiose goals, loosely defined  and delegates responsibility for interpreting those goals exclusively to regulatory agencies that have no accountability to the citizenry and only limited accountability to the president of the United States.

There's much more, but it amounts to this: Regulatory agencies, or the regulatory divisions within cabinet agencies, operate as self-contained entities that create de-facto laws that Congress would never  have passed on an up or down vote. They then act as both police and judge in enforcing the laws they have created."

In a nutshell:

"American government isn't supposed to work this way"  

Charles Murray's new book, By the People, provides a much more thorough analysis of the threat to individual liberty stemming from the consuming power of the federal government. Fortunately, Murray also sees a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

There is of, course, at least one other aspect to this unbridled growth of governmental control, and that is, what else?, the money. Federal spending is out of control, with the federal deficit fast approaching $19 Trillion. We are now less than a year away from the next presidential election and amid all the blather we have already been subjected to by erstwhile candidates, there has been precious little attention focused on the deficit or fiscal concerns, and that's among the Republicans. On the other side, front-runner, Hillary, wants to add even more fuel to the fire with a program of free college tuition for all.

When the family credit cards and home equity loans max out, regular people must make tough decisions, the first of which is cut spending. What does Washington know that we don't?

   

Technical Difficulties

To our legions of loyal readers, we extend our apologies for the lack of postings since last January. While our hope for a third Romney presidential candidacy continues to have a detectable heartbeat, the more operative reason for the hiatus has been a severe technical glitch in accessing the site. What can you expect from an IT orientation that had its roots in floppy disks, dot matrix printers, and still doesn't include an I phone in its tech arsenal.  Not to mention the fact that we have no grandchildren to tutor us.

So keep an eye on this site as it is undergoing a bit of a makeover. Once complete, we will be scurrying to catch up with current events.


Why the photo of WFB, Jr.?

The November 19, 2015 issue of National Review celebrates the its 60th anniversary and is clearly a collector's item for all right-thinking people. If by some chance you are not a subscriber, get yourself a copy, today.

Linkage between N.R. and this site is limited to one of inspiration, of which we are grateful recipients.


A Big gain for the Romney's, A big loss for the rest of us

Apparently Mitt Romney has decided not to enter the 2016 race for president, as reported here by Google News.

While we are glad for the Romney family that Ann and the lads will not be subjected to another two-year meat grinder. At the same time, Mitt is one of the few possible candidates that could possibly put the federal government back on track.

And so we yield to the parallel reality of national politics in which candidates are measured by vaporous and mystical qualities. We are not sure exactly what these qualities are, but if a man like Mitt Romney cannot measure up, we are in deep doo doo. It probably explains how we ended up with the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ann, Mitt, Thank you for being admirable role models and thank you for all your service.

This Just in

Quick update on the previous post.

Turns out when we cited the current level of the National Debt at $17 trillion, we were a step behind.
Last week the ante got upped to $18 Trillion. We need some slack to be cut. After all, everything, except maybe the price of real estate, seems to lag the rest of the country down here in the tropics.

$18 Trillion is mucho dinero no matter how you slice it. To paraphrase the late Everett Dirksen, "A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money". Poor old Everett was talking in millions. He must be spinning in his grave.

For an agonizing analysis of how this breaks down to the individual level, check out This Site. And the Deficit Monster doesn't just sit there waiting quietly for a far-off, day of reckoning, it demands to be fed on a regular and current basis.  Last year we spent a cool $430 Billion on interest payments, and that reflected the artificially low, by historic standards, interest rates. Just wait until the Fed unleashes the rates.

The Left has long been accused of promoting a tax and spend approach to government. Obama has stood this on its head by cranking up the USA "credit card" first and then telling us we need to pay a little more in taxes to pay for "infrastructure". We used to think that Obama must have dozed his way through the economic classes during his Ivy League education. We now realize that he had a much more sinister plan in mind. We, and subsequent generations will be paying for Obama's presidency long after he has left the White House and is banking those $200,000 + speaking fees on the lecture circuit.

Peggy and Mitt

Peggy, Peggy, Peggy!!

We love Peggy Noonan, we really do, even when she goes off the reservation from time to time.

Writing in Saturday’s WSJ, she starts with a riff on whether governors or senators have what it takes to make the better president given the questionable premise that governors are better versed in domestic issues, but are at sea when it comes to foreign affairs.  Conversely, senators are seen to acquire more exposure, and presumably, expertise in the diplomatic realm, but are weak on domestic issues.

The waters get muddier when it is asserted that governors, for some reason, can more easily shore up their weak side than senators. In an effort at counterpoint to these assumptions I give you Messrs. Obama and Kerry and Ms. Clinton. All three have been senators but apparently didn’t get the memo on their accumulated foreign affairs expertise. We would argue that an evaluation of their collective diplomatic abilities is not improved even if we assume, as does Dinesh D’Souza, that the foreign relations goal of the current administration is to drag America down from world power status to world-class has been. Surely having the British prime Minister lobby the U.S. Senate on behalf of the president’s Iran strategy, is a new low.

We now get to the meat of Peggy’s piece, and his name is Mitt Romney.

Peggy’s credentials as a Reaganophile, of course, date back to her service in the Reagan administration and frankly, she has a lot of company, including ourselves. Her argument that Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan, while true, should also point out that Reagan clones are also non-existent among the rest of the list of possible 2016 presidential candidates. We are not sure that even a reincarnated Ronald Reagan could measure up to his own prior record.

One of the greatest failures of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is the way he has divided the country. Liberals vs. conservatives, haves vs. have nots and who would argue that there has been an improvement in race relations during his term and a half? We could go on.

When Peggy tells us that there is not, and never will be, anything like Romneyism, we see this as a backhanded smack against Mitt’s conservative bona-fides. We would argue that what is needed in a president is not another end-of-spectrum ideologue, but rather a well-organized and experienced manager who might be able to reign in of an almost out-of-control administration as reflected by a national debt in excess of $17 Trillion!

First of all, the government must be fiscally brought to heel by bringing back an effective budget control system. Living within our means may sound trite, but ignoring it has been putting us on the road to fiscal perdition.

As a supplementary effort, the federal agencies must be nudged back to their stated functions. The I.R.S., the Justice Department and the veterans Administration are a few for starters. Rahm Emanuel has said that the federal government is grown to the point that it is uncontrollable. We think he is right if the Chief Executive with the constitutional mandate to do the controlling has little administrative skill beyond neighborhood organizing. America is full of large entities that are generally well-managed. If anyone can prove Rahm Emanuel wrong, Mitt is the guy.

As far as any perceived lack of foreign affairs expertise is concerned, revisiting Mitt’s comments from the last campaign shows that this ex-governor knows a thing or two about the rest of the world. Moreover, it could be argued that the real problem with our diplomatic relations stems not from a lack of execution, but rather a mush-headed set of assumptions about America’s international strategy. A re-instatement of the country’s core values could go a long way towards putting our diplomatic relations back on an even keel. And as Peggy has told us. Mitt, as a former governor, has a natural leg up in getting up to speed in this area