Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Why not Ron Paul?

(Photo credit: Associated Press)
So I kept meaning to write a post on Newt Gingrich, but couldn’t find the time. Law school finals and papers kept interrupting.

But now that that’s behind me, at least for a few weeks, I can turn my attention back to politics.

And lo and behold, Ron Paul is rising in the polls. How did that happen? And why am I not thrilled? After all, he’s the limited government pro-constitution candidate.

Paul’s legion of followers have long complained that he is not taken seriously by the media. That is changing. Many recent articles have examined Paul’s association with conspiracy theorists and pandering to the political fringes, his liberal foreign policy, his tendency to resort to personal attacks, his naive promises, and his paranoia. A particularly interesting article written by a former staffer explores Paul’s  initial opposition to the  invasion of Afghanistan, as well as his theory that we should have stayed out of WWII.

PHC professor Gene Veith recently asked whether Paul could be the person to unite the left and right. If he means the fringes of each party--that part where the two become indistinguishable--he’s certainly correct. There’s a utopian streak running through many of his followers that is easy to place at either fringe.

Personally, I have my own list of reasons for opposing Paul. He sounds good because he runs on the “constitution” - but his understanding of that document is more akin to the anti-federalists and Confederates than Madison or Hamilton. Or, to use a more familiar analogy, his “constitutionalism” excites conservatives the same way Obama’s “change” excited liberals - it sounds good and allows the listener to project whatever he wants onto the candidate’s platform.

Furthermore, as the racist newsletter and association with conspiracy theorists indicates, Paul is a very poor judge of others. Dare I say he’s too trusting. Even if you like some of his ideas, it difficult to trust him to make good cabinet and  judicial appointments. And then, as with the newsletters, could a president Paul explain away an embarrassing press releases or legislation with “I didn’t read it and disavow it?” Is this interview what Presidential press conferences will look like?




And then there’s his foreign policy. He advocates just getting along with everyone. But as Jonah Goldberg at the National Review pointed out, he wasn’t particularly successful at that as a legislator:

Paul has been in Congress, off and on, for nearly 30 years. In that time, he will rightly tell you, Congress has spent money with reckless abandon, expanded the state’s police powers, launched numerous wars without a declaration of war, and further embraced fiat money (he got into politics when Richard Nixon took us fully off the gold standard). During all of that, he took to the floor and delivered passionate speeches in protest convincing . . . nobody. He authored precious little legislation of any consequence.

Paul’s supporters love to talk about how he was a lone voice of dissent. They never explain why he was alone in his dissent. Why couldn’t he convince even his ideologically sympathetic colleagues? Why is there no Ron Paul caucus?

Why not indeed. While in congress Paul sponsored 620 bills, 4 of which were voted on and one of which was signed into law. That one involved the sale of a customs house in Texas. Rather, Paul managed to get himself kicked off of the conservative group Young Americans for Freedom. He was voted worst follower by Congressional staff in 2006. He also was one of the very few dissenters from his party in a cause he is apparently passionate about . . . earmark spending (which he justifies asking for because he was going to vote against the bill anyway). In short, Paul’s weakness is his ideological inability to compromise or seek agreement.

Yet in foreign policy that is exactly what he condemns the United States for--believing it is the world’s only hope. He wants to solve problems by negotiating, but his record in congress indicates he is incapable of that--whether across the aisle or with his own party. And if he could not come to agreement with his own party leadership, why should we expect anything different from his talks with Ahmadinejad (despite their common belief that Israel should not exist)?

Saturday, December 24, 2011

The Joy of Giving

Matthew
This is truly an exciting time of year. People all around the world follow God's example and give gifts to each other on the day we celebrate the gift of Jesus. 


Matthew, my cousin, is a great example of this. He is still at the age where all of his gifts come from the dollar store, but he is a great example of gift giving. He LOVES it! He can't wait. All he can think about is how much you will love his gift. 


He begged and begged his mother to take him shopping. He wouldn't let her forget. But that is not the best part. Once the shopping was done he could not wait! He HAD to give the gifts out. He would ask his mom if he could give the gifts now... she said no, not yet. 10 minutes later he was asking again. 


He didn't need to give a Wii to be happy. (He gave me a quarter of a bag of candy.) But the look on his face when he gave it had more joy than all the Santa's you've ever seen! He was a cheerful giver. He gave out of what he had. He is an example to me of not only how to give in this season, but always. 


A few years ago I was spending time with a friend from college and he was talking about the verses in Proverbs that talk about how God blesses the generous. That conversation along with Matthew's example inspire me to remember that I do not need to pinch my pennies and withhold generosity. One of the reasons that I am careful with my money is so I can be generous. So that in the moment I can offer to pay for a friend's lunch, buy someone a train ticket, or drive them 50 miles. 


God gives us money as a tool. Something that we can use to bless others. Thrift is good, but not if it makes us forget to spend money freely when the opportunity comes. 


That is what God did when He took on flesh and came among us. He needed to be the all powerful Glorious Creator of all and Judge of the World before He limit Himself and become a part of the creation of that world. He spend what He had and gave Himself as a gift to us that first Christmas. 


Let us follow His example and remember Matthew's joy of giving today and tomorrow. 


by Jeremiah Lorrig

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Nutcracker Review!

I enjoy writing reviews, and while we are on the topic, you should check out my War Horse review that went viral two weeks ago. The movie comes out next week, so if you want to check it out click here.

The Nutcracker is a classic Christmas story and it is one of the best known ballets of all time. Last night I had the joy of watching the Colorado Youth Ballet's performance at the Pikes Peak Center in downtown Colorado Springs. Every year this is one of the most enjoyable productions of the ballet that appeals to both experienced and inexperienced ballet watchers.

In addition to the dancers, they also sport an impressive cast that includes  professional actors and magicians who wow the audience throughout the show. Tchaikovsky is played by an excellent actor David Sckolnik who guides the viewers through the story. Drosselmeyer is always portrayed as magical, but Director Patty Hoffman makes the most of the character's magic to impress and confound the audience.

Have you ever seen someone engage a crowd and think to yourself, "He should be on stage"? I had one of those moments last night but it quickly became awkward when I realized that I was already watching him on stage. This character was the brother, Fritz, he connected with the crowd and drew everyone into the opening scene. Although traditionally his role is very limited, Hoffman wisely allowed him more time in the limelight. I don't know what is in Franklin Bennett's future, but he is very comfortable on stage.

Another character I want to point out was the Arabian male dancer. When he first strutted onto stage I wanted to look him straight in the eye and say “Just because you have a cool Arabian costume does not make you are ALL THAT.” After a few scenes of cute little children enjoying the antics of performance, the mysterious Arabian music swelled to fill the room, the problem was that the room was also being filled with the ego of one of the dancers: the Arabian. All of my criticism died, however, when I realized that he was indeed ALL THAT. He stole the show. He was a very physical dancer with a flare for the dramatic. The entire hall was astounded and showed appreciation with the strongest applause of the night.

At one point Tchaikosky was explaining the ballet, and I had a terrifying realization that my hearing aid was cutting out. Then I remembered with great joy that I don't have a hearing aid! I concluded that it was the sound system or mic. Never was I so happy over someone's technical difficulties.

The other sad problem was the fact that one of the most signature dances of the Nutcracker was cut leaving the audience with a Waltz of the Flowers shaped hole in their experience. The Snow Queen dance almost made up for it with it's flowing and beautiful choreography and breathtaking performance.

All told, I highly recommend adding the Nutcracker to your Christmas traditions (esp if you have a younger sister playing a Party Girl!)

What is your favorite Christmas show? It's a Wonderful Life? The Nutcracker? Wonderland? The Fourth Wiseman?

Posted by Jeremiah Lorrig


Backstage Photo Credit: 
 Ted Mehl ©2011 A Better Image Photography

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Reflections on Newt's Rise


This is the next part of our presidential election series. We already have profiled Romney, Cain, and Paul, now it is time for Newt!

Newt is known. His multiple affairs and marriages have come and gone. His strong arm political tactics are legend, and stories about them legion. He doesn't hide his disagreements with conventional conservative doctrine. He is Newt, hear him roar!

My two thoughts on the Rise of Newt:

1. Is there anyone who worked with him when he was in power willing to endorse him? Why are all the ones I talk with so emphatic that he should not be president? What does that tell an informed voter?

2. Now that we have a president of a new/younger generation, would America go back? I think what George W. Bush said in his recent biography, Decision Points, is very insightful. He said:

By the spring of 1992, it was clear who that nominee would be, Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. Clinton was twenty-two years younger than Dad--and six weeks younger than me. The campaign marked the beginning of a generational shift in American politics. Up to that point, every president since Franklin Roosevelt had served during World War II, either in the military or as commander in chief. By 1992, Baby Boomers and those younger made up a huge portion of the electorate. They were naturally drawn to support someone of their own generation. Clinton was smart enough to steer away from Dad's strengths in foreign policy. He recognized the economic anxiety in the country and ran on a disciplined message: "It's the economy, stupid."
If he is right and American's don't go backward in generations, does that mean that Newt doesn't have a chance?

What do you think?

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Too Far

WARNING THE WORLD IS ENDING! …at least according to the internet.

According to reports S. 1867 will end freedom in the United States by allowing for “permanent detention” of United States citizens.

The problem can best be summed up by my favorite Abraham Lincoln quote: “The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it’s difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine.

The fact is that rumors of our demise have been exaggerated. People on the left have been trying to take on the Department of Defense for awhile now, and they decided that S. 1867 was the way to do it. The real problem is that they have duped people on the right into joining them. 

Even conservative stalwart Senator Rand Paul gave a speech on the topic. 
But the fact is that this bill does not end civil rights in America. In fact, this bill doesn’t do what they say at all.



On page 426 of the bill there is a clause that allows the Armed Forces to detain covered persons from “subsection b”. The good news for people like me who hate federal law because it is so complicated is that subsection b is right there! It says that subsection b only includes those who were involved in the September 11 attacks, al-Qaeda, or the Taliban. 

This part of the law doesn’t change anything from the status quo. I know people who have corresponded with Senator DeMint, likely the most outspoken conservative in the US Senate, and they agree that the text itself does not do what they claim.




The moral of the story is this: don’t believe everything you see online. Even this post misquotes Lincoln! Check out what you hear. Don’t panic. Learn the facts.

-Posted by Jeremiah Lorrig 

Friday, December 2, 2011

War Horse Movie Review

Last night I saw a prerelease screening of Steven Spielberg’s latest film, War Horse that hits theaters on December 25th. 

War Horse wrestles with the theme of bravery. It asks “What does it mean to be brave?” and “What is a good example of bravery?”

Unlike many movies that just ask questions, this movie actually helps the audience find answers.

Bravery is not just the cavalier charge of the noble horse soldiers. It is also an old man refusing to be proud. It is an energetic youth risking the machine gun fire to help save the lives of his friends. It is a wife standing by her husband in hard times. It is a little girl keeping her head when threatened by greedy soldiers. It is a grandfather staying above the foray, focusing on the task before him. Bravery is not one of these things, it is all of them.

There are great moments in the film like when an English soldier exclaims to a German, “You speak English good!” and the German responds, “I speak English well.”

The most astonishing scene, however, is when the Joey, the War Horse, goes running through, over, and between the dark trenches and soldiers. That scene is nothing short of breathtaking and spectacular. Over all, Spielberg fills the film with epic shots of the English countryside, cavalry charges through flowery meadows, and sunsets.

Although some complain that the film is an emotional roller coaster, I believe that it is a story about bravery, sacrifice, and the joy that life can bring from unexpected places.

For the parents who are worried about the PG-13 rating (for implied war violence and thematic elements), I have a few words: War Horse does show the brutality of WWI, but without blood and guts. They made it for kids. You see that the war was hard, but the violence level is less than the violence in the classic Gary Cooper film, Sergeant York.

In fact, this is the first movie I have ever seen that feels like an old movie done today. It has the family friendly elements of a classic black and white film, but the creative stunning visuals from Spielberg, a powerful John Williams soundtrack, and the dazzling precision of modern effects.

For you horse lovers out there, I would say that the movie is a cross between King of the Wind and Sergeant York. It is a classic horse story that deserves a place beside Misty, Black Beauty, and The Black Stallion.

All told, I believe this to be the most inspiring family movie this year.

By Jeremiah Lorrig

Note: Special thanks to Emily for her input on this post.


Thursday, November 3, 2011

The Good, the Bad, and the Romney

Alright, a little while ago I polled my awesome friends on Facebook asking: “I've already blogged about Ron Paul and Herman Cain. So who should I blog about next?”

The clear winner was Romney. It is not hard to see why. In the polls he is either leading or neck and neck with the leader in every early state. He is a known quantity because of his run four years ago and it is clearly the man to beat in the Republican primary.

So, let me give you a little background on him. He is one of the few serious candidates for president this time around that I have not met, but that is not because he doesn't get around. He was born in Michigan to a businessman, and later popular Governor (likely Michigan could be in play if he is the nominee). He is Mormon so in the middle of his time in college he went on his Mission. (I am jealous of this part) His Mission was France for two years. Also he was a counter protester against the hippies. Anyway, he then finished college, got his BA and JD, and went into business.

He didn't really get into politics until in 1994 he challenged Ted Kennedy and ran for the Massachusetts senate seat. He lost, but that (and the fact that he ran the 2002 Olympics) allowed him to launch a strong campaign for Governor in 2002. He didn't run again. But he did decide that he wanted to be president so he ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 and he is now running again.

Now THE GOOD.

  • He is running on the full Republican platform.
  • He has the name recognition to get elected.
  • He doesn't have personal baggage.


THE BAD

  • He's record in Massachusetts is really bad if care about big government, ending abortion, or protecting traditional marriage.
  • He ran to the left of Kennedy when he ran for Senate.
  • He probably will not be able to beat Obama.*
  • There are rumors that he has a glass ceiling for non-Mormons.
  • He has changed his positions quite a bit when he decided to run for president.**


THE ROMNEY:

In the end, I like what he is saying now, even though his record is horrible, I trust him enough to think that he will do what he says and at least not go against conservative principles. If he were to win the nomination, I would support him.

What do you think? Would you vote for Romney?

-Jeremiah Lorrig


*I don't think he can win because I know a lot of conservatives who say that they will never vote for him (based on his record) even if it meant voting third party. I don't know if this would necessarily hold when people are faced with another Obama term, but I can say this: they will not work hard for him. Even if they vote for him, they will not be out there telling their friends to vote. When the base is dead, you may put on a “good effort” but it will be like McCain all over again. No one really wants him, so no one works to make it happen.
**I like how he has changed and want to welcome everyone to my side of things.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

You got the Belgians running Europe?

I am reading A Journey: My Political Life by Tony Blair. This story about a G8 meeting that President George W. Bush was at had me laughing, so I thought I'd share it with you!


"At the Genoa G8 in 2001 – his first – we had a discussion on climate change. The Belgians at that time had the EU presidency, and so they were also at the G8 table. The then Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, is a nice guy and bright, but very Brussels. Kyoto had been agreed and Bill Clinton had signed it, but the US Senate had voted 98–0 against ratification. On assuming office, George had flatly dissed the whole thing. [...] He said what he thought, which was that he wasn’t convinced, either by Kyoto or actually by the basic argument about the changing of the climate. He added that there was no way America could possibly meet the Kyoto targets without doing immense damage to its economy, and he was just not going to do that.
After George had finished, Guy said he understood what George was saying, but really the American problem had a very simple solution, one that would be good for the world, but also immensely beneficial for the inner well-being of the American people: they could cut their emissions significantly if they doubled gasoline prices by raising the taxes on it. Such an action would be bold, it would help wean the American people off their obsession with the motor car, and earn George the high approval of international political opinion, not least in Belgium.
George had arrived bang on time for this first discussion and had not fully said hello to all the participants. He didn’t know or recognise Guy, whose advice he listened to with considerable astonishment.
He then turned to me and whispered, ‘Who is this guy?’
‘He is the prime minister of Belgium,’ I said.
Belgium?’ George said, clearly aghast at the possible full extent of his stupidity. ‘Belgium is not part of the G8.’
‘No,’ I said, ‘but he is here as the president of Europe.’
‘You got the Belgians running Europe?’ He shook his head, now aghast at our stupidity."


-Jeremiah Lorrig

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

CNN Debate: Best Yet

My take:

  • Romney: attacked on all sides and I think it will remind people to stay away. 
  • Perry: attacked and showed his weaknesses but also showed that he'll take on Romney
  • Cain: Still struggling to show depth of content, but didn't collapse if he survives the week he'll stay near the top.
  • Santorum: Shows substance, but also fails to win support
  • Gingrich: Same as Santorum
  • Bachmann: Love that she brought every question back to Obama, but don't think it was her break
  • Paul: Made the people who already love him love him more.


    Who do you think won?


    -Jeremiah Lorrig 

Friday, October 14, 2011

War’s Tarnished Glory

An interesting comment was left on the previous post discussing Ron Paul’s foreign policy. For those who didn’t see it, here it is:
Having read The Savage Wars of Peace, my take on the small-scale wars is thoroughly different. I seem to recall the author pointing out that while, yes, the wars did promote freedom, they were never ideological wars intended to do so. They were simply wars fought to defend or promote American interests. One cannot say the pacification of the Philippines, for example, was intended as the spread of freedom. Rather, it was the spread of America. For the most part, such military action rarely included full-scale occupation. We bloodied countries noses, got what we wanted (like securing a molasses at a reasonable rate) then left.

I think that when we started to claim moral justification for our wars, we took any justification away. I say we should involve ourselves militarily in other places, but for our country, not for our ideas.

When we made it plain that we fought for economic reasons, we didn’t claim our lifestyle was superior, so no one took it personally.
This is an excellent point. Whatever happened to wars waged unashamedly in the nation’s self-interest?

WWI and WWII happened, and showed the western powers that the consequences of their self-interested wars could be devastating worldwide. As a response, the UN Charter was drafted:
  • to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
  • to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
  • to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
  • to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
There is no room for wars promoting self-interest here. Furthermore:
The Nürnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: “To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” It held individuals accountable for “crimes against peace”, defined as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing....” When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the Nürnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.

It thus appears that wars waged to promote a nation’s interests, rather than waged for a defensive or moral purpose, are frowned upon (if not outright prohibited) by international law.

Now of course, that could lead to either fewer wars where one side has a clear moral upper hand. Or, it could simply lead to everyone attempting to justify promoting their interests under the guise of some moral superiority.

Which has actually happened?

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

What to Look for in a Candidate

I noticed a problem in the 2010 tea party election. There were people who were right on the issues, but they were bad candidates. What we need to win is candidates who are both good on the issues and good candidates.

So, what should we look for in candidates? What are the things that should guide our choices when we are picking an ideal candidate?

William Frank Buckley, Jr. gave us some guidance when he advocated the now famous “Buckley Rule.” The rule is “Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.

This rule is very helpful to me. But I need a little more detail. So I use the following criteria.

  1. Issues:

    Look for someone who you agree with. Think about what a person's position on an issue tells you about their beliefs. Racism is a bellwether issue for me. For example, if a candidate can somehow support racism it shows me that they have a fundamental flaw in how they value human life. Another bellwether for me is abortion. If a candidate does not understand the value of every human life, they how can I trust them to make decisions that will impact thousands, if not millions of lives.
  1. Experience:
Can this person do the job? Do they have the necessary background in leadership, accomplishment, and handling the pressures of public life?

  1. Character / Temperament:
Character is the mainstay for leadership. How can you tell if a candidate has good character? Look that those closest to them. Their relationship with their family and friends will give you an idea of their personal stability. The other question is will they function well in office? I know many wonderful people. They might be well qualified to do many things. But the question here is whether or not they are capable of dealing with the pressures of public life. Not everyone is.

  1. Are they able to win:
    • Do they understand their audience and can they connect with them?
    • Do they have access to the resources necessary to win? (Are they able to appeal to high dollar donors?)
    • Can they inspire people to work to help them? (Does the base believe in them?)
    • Can they catch the wave of history? Some people cannot tell what is happening in history if it hits them in the head with a brick. Someone with clear vision can see what is happening, and ride that wave.
 I hope this is helpful to you. What do you look for in a candidate?

-Jeremiah Lorrig
As originally published on the Generation Joshua blog: Liberty's Call.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Ron Paul vs. Me


Yesterday Congressman Paul came to the Voter Values Summit in Washington, DC. As usual his people showed up in force and cheered even his flubbed sentences. It must be nice to have followers that loyal. Few in politics today can boast such loyalty.

So, I went to his speech to hear what makes him unique from his own lips. He advocated what he called the Just War Theory (Would it be too much to say his version of Just War Theory includes neither justice or war?), but practically speaking it sounds like there is no war is just unless it is in selfish interest.
That worries me. I recently read President George W. Bush's book Decision Points. It is insightful. The first chapter and the chapters on international policy are the best.
When I read his description of 9/11 it was so vivid it brought back emotions and memories. I remember all the good reasons we went to war in the Middle East.

A great book I recommend is The Savage Wars of Peace by Max Boot. It is a history of American foreign policy and the “small wars” (think the halls of Montezuma and shores of Tripoli). It goes into the details of how the United States has actively used military power to help spread freedom for hundreds of years. Starting with Thomas Jefferson sending warships into Middle Eastern ports to stop terrorism on the high seas the book progresses up to Vietnam giving examples of America's historical belief and practice of promoting freedom around the world. This started with the Founding Fathers and has been ingrained in our national character ever since even when we were supposedly “isolationist.”

I am hesitant to recommend movies because everyone has different standards for what is okay on screen. The movie Hotel Rwanda, however, had a huge impact on my views of foreign policy. It is a true story and is told in a very powerful way. As Focus on the Family said in their review,
"By no means is Hotel Rwanda a film children should see (and by no means should it be deemed entertainment for moviegoers of any age). But for the millions of adults and teens who decide to take it in, it's my prayer that they will hold on to those feelings of rage and sorrow much longer than Jack thinks they will."

If good guys aren't there to stop the bad guys, the bad guys will win. As Tony Blair put it, it is an issue of morality.


In short, I believe in the Reagan principle of "peace through strength" tied closely with the Spiderman principle of "with great power comes great responsibly." William Wilberforce explains it well: "You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know." This includes having an international policy that is willing to step in when we can and promote freedom.

An insightful Generation Joshua student asked me how this squares with being responsible with our financial resources.
Obviously, we shouldn't do something if we really can't afford it. That is just foolishness. In fact, everything in foreign policy should always be filtered through the process of analyzing the positives and negatives. There is no autopilot.

One thing to remember, however, is WWII. The country was broke. We were still in the Depression and in debt. But when you
must do something you find a way to do it. We were attacked and and the world was in turmoil, thus we needed to defend ourselves, defeat our enemies, and support our allies. So, we found a way. (In this case War Bonds. HT: Captain America.) 

Money is a concern, but just like all other aspects in analysis you take all the positives and negatives into account and make the best decision you can. Sometimes that is easy, sometimes it is not. But that is the burden of leadership.

Isolationists could benefit from looking at history and remembering that selfishness is not a worthy standard for national policy. Doing what is right when it is in your best interest is not noteworthy, it is when someone does what it right when it costs them something that catches my attention.

This is why I disagree with Congressman Paul's foreign policy positions and was disappointed when I heard his speech.

Have you read The Savage Wars of Peace or seen Hotel Rwanda? Did they impact you? What has influenced your view of American foreign policy?
________
Related post: Why Not Ron Paul?

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Quote of the Day

Prime Minister David Cameron on leftists: "They practice oppression and they call it equality."


Friday, September 30, 2011

Justice Brought to Awlaki

This morning we received news that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a CIA drone in Yemen.

Already there are those who are condemning this act of justice as a violation of Awlaki’s American civil rights. They argue that he should have been tried for treason and brought to justice that way.

I agree, if he had been arrested. In fact all traitors are, like any other citizen afforded the rights to trial by jury. That is a good thing.

So, if this is the case, how can I support the work of David Petraeus and the CIA?

Despite the fact that Awlaki was a United States citizen from New Mexico this death was not punishment for crime. This death was not because he was a traitor.

Awlaki was targeted by the CIA because he was an enemy combatant in a war. And congress authorized this conflict against the organization Al-Qaeda.

Whether you agree with the War on Terror, there are battles and casualties. This man should have (and likely would have) received a proper trial if he was arrested. He would have been charged for high treason. But he put himself into the war as an enemy combatant.

It is not a constitutional crisis. He put himself there, and died on a battlefield of this strange war.

All involved in this small victory ought to be commended. (Except, of course Awlaki)

-Jeremiah Lorrig

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

THE HERMAN CAIN!

Alright, what's going on? This guy who went from a nobody and a longer than long shot came from nowhere and dethroned the Powerhouse Governors Romney and Perry (combined) to win last weeks P5 Florida Straw Poll.

Then Monday we saw shock headlines from Zogby showing that Cain had leaped to the lead.

Then this morning we were shocked again by headlines showing Cain polling within 5 points of Obama.

Now, just breaking, a FOX News poll has him diffidently in the top tier.

Romney 23%
Perry 19%
Cain 17%
Gingrich 11%
Paul 6%
Huntsman 4%
Bachmann 3%
Santorum 3%

Who is this guy? The first I heard of him was his tea party speeches. I don't know anyone who has spoken at as many tea party events as he has.

Then he came to speak at a presidential candidate forum for homeschoolers that I helped organize. One of the things I had to do was write the bio to be used when he was introduced. He's never been elected before by a vote of the people, but his record is still impressive.

He worked for the navy as a professional mathematician (don't ask me what that means...). Then he entered the business world. There he climbed the ladder like a fireman. He worked for a half dozen restaurants as a business executive before he finally took the reins of a dying company, Godfather's Pizza. As CEO he turned things around and it recovered remarkably.

After that success apparently everyone wanted him on their board of directors because he had to shed a huge number of boards before officially stepping into the ring and running for president. One of the boards he served on, by the way, was a Federal Reserve board. I imagine that the Ron Paul people will not like that, but he really understands finances.

Finally, he took a shocking foray into healthcare when he took on HilleryCare back in the nineties. In fact, he took on President Clinton on national TV (and won):


It would be nice to have someone this smart handling the national debt.

For the last several years Cain has been a conservative talk radio host in Atlanta.

Edit: You can find a summery of his policy positions, here. (HT: Andrew)

If someone asks you who THE HERMAN CAIN is, now YOU know.

-Jeremiah Lorrig

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

QUOTE OF THE DAY

QUOTE OF THE DAY: 'I gave fear up for Lent this year." - Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.



Monday, September 26, 2011

"Something you don't have in common."

I was notified by Obama's campaign that there are 347 people in Leesburg VA (the town where I live) who have given money to his campaign. They also told me that I am not one of those people. They are trying to guilt me into sending money! The subject line of the email was "Something you don't have in common." I guess they might want to know about a few other things I don't have in common with people who give him money...



Dear Mr. Obama,

I don't like how you are bankrupting America! Stop being irresponsible with the money you take in taxes before you ask me to send you the rest of my money for your campaign.

Regards,
Jeremiah


From: Jim Messina, BarackObama.com [mailto:info@barackobama.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 12:42 PM
To: Jeremiah Lorrig
Subject: Something you don't have in common


2012 Jeremiah --

Here's something you don't have in common with 347 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in your area.

That many of your neighbors have decided to own a piece of this campaign by making a donation of whatever they could afford. For some, that meant just $5. For others, it meant $100 or more. But each had their own personal reason for giving.

Our records show that you aren't one of the 347 people in Leesburg, VA who have stepped up for 2012. Now's your chance to change that.

Make a donation of $5 or more today to support the campaign before the critical September 30th deadline.

Here's why you should join your neighbors in supporting this campaign: We've been running the numbers, and with hundreds of thousands of individual donors across the country -- we are now well on our way to a million people.

In the 2008 campaign, it took us more than a year to reach that milestone. This time around, we could cross it as soon as October -- just six months after the launch of the campaign.

Between now and then, we have an important fundraising deadline.

Our opponents have significant operations on the ground in key battleground states, full-time candidates without day jobs, and a lot of media attention to fuel their campaigns.

President Obama has you. And when you're building a grassroots organization from the bottom up, the first person gets the next one involved. And the first 347 provide the foundation and inspiration for the next 347.

Support the campaign before the deadline, and bring us closer to one million donors -- give $5 today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/One-in-a-Million

Thank you,

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Paid for by Obama for America
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...