Last night I watched Bobby Jindal give the Republican Response to the State of the Union. I like Bobby Jindal and I liked his message. He is a good leader who has done great things already and has incredible potential.

Unlike the opinions of many TV talking heads and analysts, I think Governor Jindal did reasonably well for such an artificial setting. In fairness, he did not shine to his potential; however, his performance was no worse than many other governors before him in previous years and was better than many. The audio quality was poor which was no fault of his own.

So, with the above in mind, why did the Republican Party allow him to be subjected to such an artificial situation? Why not put him on a stage flanked by American flags and with a crowded room of fans who would interrupt with applause lines? Why did the Republican Party not think about minimizing the contrast between the President’s amazing State of the Union setting and the almost sterile environment of the Republican Response?

I am ashamed that Bobby Jindal had to endure any national ridicule, especially over things exaggerated by aesthetics. His message was good and appropriate but the setting was no match for people who don’t think deeply. More can and should be done in future responses to level the playing field and put Republican candidates in a more favorable light.

In Federalist No. 10 James Madison warned that “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” This leadership status has been true throughout much of our history. Sadly, it will be true in our future as well since our nation did not elect an enlightened statesman yesterday. Instead, as a nation, we chose a politician committed to expanding a radical agenda that includes abortion, socialism, immorality and national weakness.

Now that I’ve had a few more hours to analyze this dramatic leadership shift, I offer the following five thoughts on the state of our nation in general and the conservative movement in particular.

1. Things are worse than they appear.

Public policy will be incredibly more dangerous for unborn babies, the military, businesses, the institution of marriage, our courts, law-abiding gun owners, the size of the national debt and even our very individual freedoms. The Left will have little restraint in pushing through a liberal agenda.

2. Things are not as bad as they appear.

In the future, there will be no question which Party is to blame and what policies to oppose. There will be unity on the Right which will provide a chance for real conservative leaders to emerge. The Left promised much more than they can ever deliver. Swing voters will become disenchanted and look for reasonable alternatives.

3. Republicans got a reboot and will soon be forgiven for their past transgressions.

Voters punished the Republican Party (which deserved it) but will soon grow to distrust the even more expansive Democratic Party and their near lock on power. In such an unrestrained environment, I predict the Democratic Party’s spending excesses and scandals will dwarf those perpetrated by Republicans over the past eight years. During this time the Republican Party will be forced to rebuild and retool but is likely to come back stronger and (hopefully) smarter as was the case in 1980 with Ronald Reagan and 1994 with the Contract with America.

4. Conservatives need to focus on changing hearts and not merely getting votes.

Conservatives cannot look at just winning elections but must focus on converting hearts and minds. That is harder to do and means more work up front by building trust and convincing people on the merits of conservative principles. However, the rewards are far greater and produce potentially life-long supporters.

5. There is no substitute for the values of morality and basic decency.

We’re at a crossroads as a nation. Moral issues like the right to life, the very definition of marriage, the rule of law and private property ownership are under attack. If enough voters don’t believe in these values then there will be no attempt to protect them in our government of the people. In our nation leaders are only as strong as their base of support. If moral and decent people do not make up a voting majority then our nation’s politics will reflect that shift.

So, take courage, Americans, and enlist for the journey ahead. It’s a wearisome road and one that includes setbacks and defeats along the way. I’m convinced, however, that we will finish the journey if we set our hearts firmly on this important task and take things one step at a time. The result will be worth it, and will be not just one, but a series of enlightened statesmen and women at the helm.

I regularly read Obama 2.0 and just learned of some very interesting commentary by the talented founder of Macho Sauce Productions Alfonzo (Zo) Rachel. In his own words, Zo is a “musician, martial artist, amateure movie makin’, Christian conservative republican.”

His latest video is entitled 1 More B4 11 04 and builds a strong case for electing a conservative as President. He also describes very well the differences between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and Obama and McCain in ways that are very compelling. His logic is tight (I would dispute his dinosaur comment given some historic and scientific evidence that may suggest otherwise) and his reasons for supporting conservatives and John McCain in particular are some of the best I’ve heard. He is passionate about freedom and excessive government involvement in our lives. It’s well worth watching.

Click here to view the embedded video.

A few hours ago the U.S. House of Representatives defeated the $700 billion “emergency rescue” package designed to boost our nation’s financial systems and prevent an economic meltdown. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40% of Democrats voted against this legislation.

AP Reporter Julie Hieschfeld Davis reported the following comments from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) after the measure’s failure to pass:

“The legislation may have failed; the crisis is still with us,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a news conference after the defeat.

“What happened today cannot stand,” Pelosi said. “We must move forward, and I hope that the markets will take that message.”

Sounds like she was disappointed that the vote was insufficient to move the package out of the House, doesn’t it? Likewise Democrats were quick to blame Republicans for defeating this bill. However, that’s only part of the story. Some Republicans are saying they feel that Pelosi poisoned the atmosphere of bipartisanship when right before the vote she asked chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) to yield 1 minute for some comments. Her 1 minute allotment turned into more than 5 minutes and included plenty of divisive partisan attacks on the “right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation” Republicans. Some way to win friends when you need them, isn’t it?

Davis reported the following comment by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) following the vote:

“We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House,” Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi’s words, the Ohio Republican said, “poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south.”

Watch the video below for yourself and see if you think Pelosi’s comments may have been a deliberate attempt to poison the bailout vote before it occurred. Remember, she needed Republicans to vote for the measure because she couldn’t get enough Democrats behind it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

From my perspective it looks like she wanted the vote to fail so Democrats could go on television and blame Republicans as “bad for America” and other similar nonsense. And for the icing on the cake, she pulled this stunt off when there’s plenty of evidence that Democrats actually created the financial crisis we find ourselves in today.

In the Sunday, September 14, 2008 edition of the Washington Post (Page B01), Randall Kennedy’s “The Big ‘What If’” article was published. Its subtitle, “The hopes of black America ride on his shoulders. But the outcome’s way up in the air.”  When I first read this article I found it interesting yet missing something. After having a few days to mentally chew on it, I now offer the following quick comments.

This opinion piece is obviously written from Kennedy’s perspective. He begins by stating a few demographics, namely that he is a “black man born in 1954″ who grew up during the civil rights movement. He weaves his personal history into his current and expected reaction within the current political climate. The subject is Barack Obama and what this stage in history means to black Americans: “With intelligence, verve and elegance, Obama has opened the public mind to the idea of a black president and made that idea broadly attractive.”

In the fourth paragraph Kennedy builds the case for the basis of the article and in the fifth asks the question that for which the article is entitled.

I know that the conclusion to this electoral drama is far from determined. Yes, political gravity would seem to favor the Democratic candidate after two terms of Republican control of the White House. Yet the possibility is very real: Barack Obama could lose.

If that happens, then what? How will I feel? How will other black Americans feel? How should people like me feel?

The remainder of the article addresses these questions and feelings. I offer my perspective, in part, below.

Kennedy writes:

I anticipate that most black Americans will believe that an Obama defeat will have stemmed in substantial part from a prejudice that robbed 40 million Americans of the chance to become president on the day they were born black. They will of course understand that race wasn’t the only significant variable — that party affiliation, ideological proclivities, strategic choices and dumb luck also mattered. But deep in their bones, they will believe — and probably rightly — that race was a key element, that had the racial shoe been on the other foot — had John McCain been black and Obama white — the result would have been different.

I agree that race will be a factor for millions of voters; however, it is not always a negative factor resulting in lost votes. For many people, both black and white, race will encourage them to vote for Obama. For many, Obama’s race will be their primary motivation in choosing to vote for him.

Kennedy correctly notes that Obama is not likely to attract many Republican voters and party loyalty does not suggest that race was a factor in their decision. As I read it, on a very basic level, he is saying Republicans cannot be racists for not considering Obama. In support of McCain and the vast majority or Republican efforts in this campaign, I think Republican opposition to Obama has actually been more issue-oriented than Republican opposition to Bill Clinton was — which was sometimes very personality-oriented (remember Slick Willie, Hill & Bill, the Clintonistas, Bubba and other names?). Thus, since Republicans are exempt from the race equation because it is unreasonable to expect them to support any Democrat, my theory is that if Obama loses the election because of racism, it will be because of racism within the Democratic party.

I am white and a lifelong resident of Mississippi, however, contrary to many stereotypes that some would apply to me, I have always viewed Obama on the issues. I am proud that a non-white candidate could be nominated in this country 45 years after King’s famous speech. For years I have said we will one day have a black President just like one day we will have a woman President; however, I have long argued that the first Woman or Black person elected to that office will be be a conservative because I think the country is more right-leaning than left-leaning overall. I would easily vote for a black conservative candidate for President but cannot vote for any candidate who is pro-abortion and so very liberal no matter what color they are. I simply feel, as many do, that Obama is the wrong candidate to be the first African American President.  (For the record, it was Republican President George W. Bush who appointed Colin Powell and Condi Rice to positions of real power on the world scene. We’ve had Secretaries of State who were black during his entire administration which is something no other President ever did even once. I also think Powell could have been President if he had pursued it.)

I predict Obama will lose in November, not because he is “too black,” but because he is too liberal for more than half the voters. Like John Kerry before him, the Democrats again this election cycle nominated the most liberal man in the Senate and that does not sit well with most Americans in the center or on the right. It’s impossible to win without attracting voters from the political center and John McCain has a long record of attracting that voting block. Thus I predict McCain will win in November. However, if McCain wins in a landslide, it will not be because of racism on the right or even the center, but because Democrats abandoned Obama in the privacy of the voting booth. Given the tension between the Clinton and Obama camps, that, I feel, is a very real possibility.

So how should black Americans feel if (when?) Obama loses? I recommend everybody step back and look at the issues first before judging on skin color alone. Please consider the following:

First, a majority of the country is not liberal like Obama. Given the middle-right political viewpoints of most voters, for people who vote on issues, McCain is a more attractive candidate under such a comparison.

Second, all Americans can be proud that we have moved so much past race and gender stereotypes that a black candidate and a woman could be nominated by the two major parties and taken seriously.

Third, I think it’s time for black people to end their dependence on the Democratic Party and align themselves with both parties. Compete for attention instead of being taken for granted. I challenge every black person to compare the diversity of Bush’s cabinet versus Clinton’s. It was a Republican President who put minorities into top positions of power and “turned them loose.” Clinton’s “I want a cabinet that looks like America” was much more white than Bush’s “I want a cabinet of the best and the brightest.”

Fourth, don’t yell racism without proof. Obama won the Iowa caucuses handily and Iowa is about 95% white. Most of the states Obama won in the Democratic primary had a majority white electorate.  Accusing racism without cause puts racist thought in people’s minds and perpetuates the evil instead of relegating it to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Fifth, don’t give up. Teach your kids that they can aspire to be President and then teach them history, political science, economics, critical thinking, speech and other skills that a President needs so they are prepared to pursue that dream.

Sixth, unite as Americans — not black or white or minorities — and pursue the American Dream. Make this land a better place for everyone. Give more than you receive. Diversity is wonderful when it provides multiple avenues for reaching a common goal. Diversity without underlying unity, though, pulls us apart as a nation and is dangerous.

I firmly believe there will come a day when the United States will have Presidents who just happen to be black; however, voting for or against a candidate along “race” lines, whether white, black or any color, is utter foolishness and downright childish. We should grow up and move beyond the “race” figment of our imagination and look at the individual and the policies he or she supports. Let’s be colorblind.

A liberal friend asked me to read an article entitled “Insanity” by DarkSyde at The Daily Kos and pointed out that he thinks it pretty much sums up how most liberals feel about the past 8 years and what this election is about.  I found the article cleverly written and coming from an unusual angle.  It made me stop and think because on a foundational level I actually agree with a some of the broad assessments made in this article even though many of them are grossly exaggerated.

Republicans are often blamed for all the nation’s problems of the past 8 years. I concur that the GOP has been part of the problem for 4 of the past 8 years; however, remember, the Senate was evenly divided when Bush was elected and then 1 GOP member switched to Independent and caucassed with the Democrats so the GOP didn’t control both houses until 2003 and then lost in 2007 after the 2006 election cycle. In fairness to Republicans though, during the 4 years of complete GOP control, Democrats have blocked and/or watered-down virtually all Republican proposed solutions to the problems this article blames them for.

However, in spite of the problems, the overall issue is bigger than simply who controls Washington. The underlying problem in Washington, as I see it, is systemic and part of human nature. It’s something our Founding Fathers were aware of and repeatedly divided government in an attempt to mitigate. It’s simply this: Power corrupts. It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to see that both parties are now corrupt. That doesn’t mean that all members in both parties are corrupt but that the system is corrupt with power. There’s a creeping loss of individual rights and personal liberty every year regardless of which party is in power.

So that brings me to my next point. Since both parties are corrupt and there’s no third party that stands a chance at winning this election cycle, what am I to do as a voter?  I feel I must take the path of less damage and that’s why I am going with the Republican Party.  Most everything listed in the “Insanity” article would have occurred regardless of who was in power — 9/11, the mortgage crisis, a weak economy, Wall Street corruption, etc.; however, each party responds to these problems differently. While both parties continue to pass legislation that reduces my individual liberties and erodes my rights, I feel the Democrats are more restrictive and erode them faster.  For example, I’m a business owner and employer. Democrats want to tell me how to hire and fire and what kind of pay and benefits I have to offer my employees. Republicans restrict my ownership rights in these areas also but not as much. Democrats go so far as to try to require faith-based organizations like churches to hire people who hold beliefs contrary to the positions the church espouses (imagine being forced to hire an atheist for a church outreach program).

Both parties take huge amounts of taxes, but Democrats are more greedy with my money than Republicans.  Both parties create ridiculous “entitlement” programs but Democrats create more and bigger ones.  And on issues of national security, do you really think the defense-cutting Democrats would do a better job protecting us from the “fundamentalist Sunni Monarchs and the communist Chinese” as the “Insanity” article blames Republicans for turning our national economic future over to? (I have an answer for dealing with the Sunni Monarchs: Drill Here! Drill Now! but that’s for another article.)

The shipping of jobs oversees has been going on for decades and didn’t slow down under Democratic Presidents Carter or Clinton.  If the Democrats succeed in taxing corporations for “excessive profits” that will force them to leave our borders — it’s like killing the goose who lays the golden egg. The result would be reduced overall tax revenues and a weaker economy as more jobs are lost.

The article concludes with “Conservatives are worried that Democrats might do the same astonishingly lousy job Republicans have done for the last eight years.”  Actually, I’m concerned that the Democrats’ overall job performance would be far worse than the poor one performed by recent Republicans. This constant concern is one reason why I actually have some excitement about the McCain/Palin ticket since both have proven records of taking on corrupt government and private interests including ones in their own party.  Can the Obama/Biden ticket demonstrate taking on their own party ever for anything?

I think there will be less government growth under a McCain administration than an Obama administration. We don’t need more and bigger government and so I will vote against its expansion whenever I can.

Note: In this post I’m ignoring a host of social issues that also put me more in line with the Republican Party. That’s for another article and another day.

I’m sure this shocked many on the left and many in the mainstream media, but the Republican convention was more watched than the Democratic convention AP Television Writer David Bauder reported today. He writes: “The Republican convention was the most-watched convention on television ever, beating a standard set by the Democrats a week earlier.” Also interesting is that John McCain and Barack Obama both were tied at 42.4 million viewers each for their respective party nomination speeches.

Overall, “more than 40 million people watched political speeches on three nights by Obama, McCain and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin,” Bauder reports. “Three times in two weeks, political speeches were watched by more people than the ‘American Idol’ finale, the Academy Awards and the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics this year.” Interestingly, speeches by Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton didn’t achieve these numbers.

According to Nielsen Media Research there were an average of 34.5 million people watching the GOP convention over three days. Nielsen suggested that “proved people are becoming more interested in what the Republicans have to say.” Nielsen reported that the Democrats had an average audience of 30.2 million over their convention’s four days. That’s more than 4 million viewers for the Republican convention.

Interesting numbers and interesting times. I think these latest numbers show a reinvigorated Republican Party due in large part to the inclusion of Sarah Palin on the ticket with John McCain.

On Tuesday voters in Mississippi’s first congressional district elected a Democrat in a special election. Given that this is the third straight loss for Republicans in special elections within “Republican-safe” districts, many political pundits are calling this a wake-up call for the party.

I agree this is a wakeup call for the Republican Party and I offer the following reasons why Republicans are in danger of much greater losses in November.

1. Republicans were swept into power in 1994 with a mandate to change Washington.

Remember the ten point “Contract with America” that brought Republicans to power in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years? This was the first significant time in a generation when a majority of the country voted FOR Republicans. Republicans were entrusted with power because they promised specific change, not because they were Republicans.

2. Republicans were favored for a few years while they passed most of the “Contract with America” and held the line on spending.

With their successes, Republicans became more dominant and powerful — even convincing a weakened Bill Clinton to do the unthinkable and sign welfare reform and other significant conservative-leaning legislation.

3. Then a strange thing began to happen as Republicans became part of the Washington Establishment.

After about a decade in power, many Republicans had became overconfident incumbents who enjoyed power. They forgot who put them into positions of power and why they were there. Instead, they shifted their focus onto themselves and began to selfishly act like Democrats and spend like crazy. Ethics took a back seat as corruption and scandal emerged among several high-profile cases (however mild by the standards of some Democrats a decade or two earlier; but as a party of values, Republicans were held to a higher standard).

4. Some conservative-leaning Democrats saw an opportunity to run against fat-cat, do-little Republicans.

By 2006 Republicans were viewed by a majority as corrupt and lazy party in need of reform and in the pocket of lobbyists and special interests. A handful of less-liberal-than-usual Democrats ran on a more conservative agenda and found success in picking off enough Republicans to win back both chambers of Congress.

5. Republicans reacted with more of the same.

Instead of sensing the defeat as a rebuke on the party, Republicans largely explained it away as bad campaigns and negative trends. There were mild shakeups in leadership and token responses to cleaning up ethics. However, there were no really significant reform measures or strong efforts to address earmarks, border control or national security improvements in a way that appealed to a generally conservative majority. Other than unity on funding and supporting the War in Iraq, Republicans did essentially nothing to regain the voter’s trust. Instead, high-profile moves were made that alienated much of the Republican base — social and/or fiscal conservatives and proponents of a strong national defense.

6. Republicans mis-handled the Long War Against Radical Islam.

This War is essential and we must win it; however, Republicans, especially the President, have dropped the ball in communicating the case on why it is so important. Republicans, especially the President, have become weak in the face of the polls and not backed up the Bush Doctrine of going after all terrorists and those who harbor them (like those in Iran, for example). Thus short memories dominate the scene as Americans become increasingly impatient with growing war casualties and grim outlooks for a non-violent Middle East (at least in the short run). Additionally, no spokesperson is sufficiently warning of the long term consequences of failure to win this War. In my opinion, there should be something akin to Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” to keep Americans informed of what is going on and why this Long War is needed. I also argue that we need to be more aggressive militarily and less accommodating to Middle Eastern radicals who view anything democratic and humanitarian as weak.

7. Democrats have co-opted many formerly Republican issues and re-framed them in their favor.

The abandonment of traditional values and failure to adequately build a case for the Long War by the Republicans left Democrats free to swoop in and pick up these issues and frame them in liberal terms. Many voters don’t heavily analyze the issues and have not seen the subtle substitution that has taken place. They hear Democrats talking about conservative issues like traditional values, gun rights, patriotism, national defense and ending the war (notice I didn’t say winning it) and they carelessly think this candidate must be conservative like me. Since Republicans haven’t fixed what they were put into power to fix from 1994 through 2004 then voters are ready to try “new” Democrats who are talking like conservatives and arguing for change. This leads me to my final point.

8. The country remains largely conservative, but conservative doesn’t equate to Republican.

Republicans seemed to think that their election and subsequent reelection for 6 cycles amounted to a “realignment” of the voters from the old Democratic Party loyalties to them. Such was never the case, I argue. Instead, Republicans benefited from their conservative change message in 1994 but when they didn’t deliver, the voters were ready to send them back home and put a new batch of “change” talking Democrats into power. Republicans should have known better and stayed on message.

Conclusion

So what does all this mean for Republicans? It means danger and defeat at the polls this November if they don’t wake up and get back to work.

Is a massive Republican defeat a certainty? Absolutely not. There are incredible problems below the surface within the Democratic Party. Furthermore, many of the so-called “conservative Democrats” don’t have voting records to back up their rhetoric and could be easy pickings for a true conservative candidate.

So what is needed to take the wind out of the Democrats’ sails? A leader who is a communicator with a vision for real change like that promised in 1994. It has to be somebody people can trust. It also has to be somebody who will take the time to talk to them — or more likely convince with a serious “blood, sweat and tears” Churchill-like message — that conservative ideals are best for the long term success of the country.

The Party that reaches out and connects with the conservative majority in America will win in November. While the winner may not be Republican, I predict the message and candidates will at least be crafted in conservative language.

The recent success of Mike Huckabee in Iowa and in many polls suggests that many Republicans are not happy with their party in general and are looking for a leader who is not part of “the establishment.” While some may say otherwise, I don’ think a vote for Huckabee is an outright rejection of Republicans in general or Bush in particular since President George W. Bush remains popular with most Republicans. I do feel, though, that most Huckabee supporters are very dissatisfied the poor performance of the previous Republican-controlled Congress and are eager to see real change. Let me explain.

In spite of the low approval ratings of Congress, it seems that Congressional Republicans did make some strides in redeeming themselves this past year while in the minority. I feel they have a lot more proving to do before voters wish to trust them with majority status again.

In 2006 enough Democrats were elected to punish big-spending and out-of-touch Republicans and thus they narrowly gained control of both chambers of Congress. While Democrats became the majority party, I don’t feel they received a strong mandate for many of the policies they began to push and thus they ended up squandering most of their political capital last year.

So with this picture in mind, I think Mike Huckabee is a breath of fresh air within a stagnating Republican Party. He is in touch and personable. Even better, he is a communicator and not a Washington insider. He brings hope and new ideas. He demonstrates a willingness to tackle problems in a different way than simply throwing money around. The strategy he is successfully employing in his campaign shows he can be frugal and is one who actually thinks “outside the box.” That’s great news.
These attributes are good news for the Republican Party and will bring much needed energy and enthusiasm to the debate. His quick thinking “on the stump” and his ability to articulate in 8-second sound bites is essential in the current superficial environment, especially if another strong communicator like Barak Obama wins the Democratic nomination. Huckabee’s heartland approach and non-Washington style makes him more appealing to non-Republicans and that will be essential if the GOP is to win the Presidency in 2008.

Think of this: Mike Huckabee teamed with a strong and respected running mate with vast foreign policy experience (somebody like John McCain, for example) just might be the winning combination for November. Such a ticket would shake up (think freshen up) the Republican Party’s image and energize the conservative base in ways that would impact millions — including the campaigns of other Republicans. Since he can bring people together and offers hope and vision, that would be good for the Republican Party. Actually, a campaign of ideas like these is long overdue and would be good for the nation.

Looking over headline events of late, it is easy to become pessimistic over the course of world affairs. From one end to the other there seems to be problems. Over the past five years I have moved from cautiously optimistic to down-right concerned at times. Here are some of the reasons why I am concerned over the storm clouds that I see gathering.

• Iran — I don’t see much efforts to stop the next Hitler. We killed off one Hitler in Saddam Hussein and that was reason for optimism. I am concerned, however, over the lack of seriousness taken by most nations to the grave dangers posed by a nuclear Iran.
• Russia — The reports I hear is that it’s looking more like the Soviet Union there of late. Putin’s political enemies are mysteriously dying while he appears to be amassing power.
• The Democrats — I don’t see a single leading Democrat among the Presidential contenders who has a backbone strong enough to take on the terrorists in Iraq let alone deal with preventing a nuclear Iran. There is lots of talk but no assurance of any serious action to stop terrorists and emerging threats.
• The Republicans — I don’t see what I would call a truly good national leader in the whole party. There are pockets of strength and some promising individuals but I’m afraid the glaring problems are more evident right now.
• Erosion of Human Rights — There are massive human rights problems in dictatorial parts of the world like Myanmar and Darfur. Other nations like Russia are experiencing a regression into a totalitarian-styled regime. Even many western nations are limiting freedoms in the name of hate-crimes legislation and anti-terrorism laws.
• Energy Policy — It seems that most of the world’s supply of energy is concentrated within political hot spots — dangerous places that are politically unstable and undesirable trading partners. And to make matters worse, most Democrats continue to oppose enhancing our domestic capabilities to produce energy. That’s simply wrong and very short-sighted. It makes us and our economy extremely vulnerable.

So with these things in mind, there is a lot to be concerned about. I offer them as a warning of pending danger given the current direction and trends. However, even though storm clouds are gathering, that does not guarantee a storm is coming. A strong wind of change could sweep through and blow these problems away. It’s also comforting to know that even within a storm there are reasons for hope and places of shelter. It’s also true that most of the time things are not as bad as they appear.