Searching for a leader with character

Character is a quality that is mandatory in a leader.  Without character, the leader will not be effective.  He will not be able to lead.  How can you follow someone who is lacking in character?  How can we follow after so-called leaders who say one thing, yet do something completely different?  How can we follow leaders who tell us that we need to act a certain way, yet they have no intention of acting in that same way?

Some have said that character is who you are when you think that no one is watching.  In other words, character is who you are, not in public and in front of others, but in the privacy of your home, when no one is around to watch you.  Anyone can put on a good show in public.  But is that who you really are when the people go away and you are no longer on the forefront?

Many years ago, in my freshman speech class in college, we learned the rules of the effective speaker.  The first rule is "The effective speaker is a person whose character, knowledge, and judgment command respect."  In other words, if you have character, you can have a commanding presence and can be a truly effective speaker and leader.  However, if you lack character, it will be extremely difficult to lead others, because you will lose trust with those who you are trying to lead.

Many Americans today are looking for leaders with character.  We often complain about the lack of character in our elected officials.  We complain about the lack of character in athletes.  We complain about the lack of character in entertainers.  Yet, many times, we do nothing to promote people of good character.  Instead, we continue to promote people of questionable or bad character.

As I watch the current candidates run for President, I am reminded of our nation's ongoing search for a leader with character.  We all want someone who can lead, but not everyone desires a leader that has impeccable character.

Why is that?  It is because there are people who do not value this important trait of character in a leader.  Some want a leader who will promise them a life where the government will give them whatever they want.  Some want a leader based on political party alone.  Some are content voting against someone instead of voting for someone.

But as I have observed the conventions over the past couple of weeks, I have seen a marked difference in character in the two men running for President.  I do not hide the fact that I am a conservative Republican, and some may think that I am biased in my analysis.  But I believe character is one of the most important, if not the most important, trait that our national leaders must possess.

During the Republican convention, many people spoke about Mitt Romney and his quiet way of helping others through difficult times.  He helped others as the were going through difficult financial times.  He helped families who were going through difficult health problems.  And he did so without drawing attention to himself.  He did it because he had the means to help.  He did it because he wanted to help.  He did it because he knew it was the right thing to do.  He does not like to talk about the ways he helped others, because to him, it is a way of life.

In contrast, President Obama does a lot of talking about helping others.  Yet, we never hear about how he has taken time to actually help others on an individual basis, before or after he became President.  He is very good at telling us that we need to help others, but where is his example?  His idea of helping others is to have the government help them, not get his own hands dirty and help them out.

It seems to me that Mitt Romney holds true to the motto "Actions speak louder than words."  He knows that you can say whatever you want.  However, you cannot be effective as a leader and be viewed as a man of character unless your actions back up your words.  If your actions do not back up your words, you will quickly be labeled a hypocrite (well, Republicans will be labeled as hypocrites, Democrats will not).

In contrast, it looks like the President lives by the motto "Do as I say, not as I do."  This is not an effective way to lead.  He is a man whose words speak louder than his actions (actually, they speak louder than his inaction).  The President says good things.  However, he fails to live them out in his own life.  If he does indeed live them out, why are we not hearing about it?

Character is important.  We need to judge our leaders based on their character.  Is Mitt Romney perfect?  No, he is not.  But in my view, he displays so much more character than the person who currently occupies the Oval Office.  And we need to take this into account as we head toward the voting booth in November.

The Politicization of Tragedy

As you have probably heard by now, a gunman went on a shooting rampage at a movie theater in Aurora, CO early this morning.  It happened shortly after the midnight showing of the new Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises" started.  There are 12 dead, and at least 50 more injured.  This is a tragedy beyond comprehension.  What would drive someone to do such a dastardly thing?

We mourn for the families affected by this tragedy.  The only thing that these people were guilty of was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  They were simply gathered in a movie theater, waiting to watch the movie that they had eagerly anticipated.  And out of nowhere, someone comes into the theater, protected by body armor, and starts shooting, without any regard for human life.  It is a tragedy, but that word does not seem adequate to describe the totality of the events that happened in that theater.

But not everyone sees this event as a tragedy.  Some see it as a chance to try to gain some sort of political advantage, or to affix blame on a group of people that they do not like.  George Stephanolpoulus interviewed James Ross on ABC this morning, and Ross floated the theory out there that this might have been someone within the Tea Party (the same tactic they tried after Rep. Gabriel Giffords was shot).

His "extensive" research was finding a person on a Tea Party website that had the same name as the gunman, and saying that this Tea Party guy was the shooter.  Really??  This is the best that this "investigative" reporter could do?  Let's ruin someone's life by affixing the blame on them when they had nothing to do with it.  I can see a lawsuit coming on this one.

I have seen several message boards and Twitter feeds where people are blaming this on the Tea Party, or Rush Limbaugh, or conservatives in general.  Yeah, let's just blame people we do not agree with, because that will make us feel better about ourselves.  How can people be consumed with such hatred that they would think this way?

As I write this, the police are at the gunman's house trying to find clues as to why the gunman did what he did.  He has booby-trapped his house.  This gunman obviously had issues.  But we do not know what was going on in his head.  We do not know why he did what he did.  Why do people fell the need to point fingers at others when tragedies happen?  The only person to blame is the person that committed the crime.

The dust has not even settled at this point, and there are already people out there trying to make political points out of this.  The illustrious mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, want more gun control laws.  He has already demanded of President Obama and Mitt Romney their plans for tighter gun control measures if elected to office.  Piers Morgan has come out in favor of tighter gun control laws.  So has D.L. Hughley. And we all know that the U.N. wants global gun control laws, and they will use this incident as an example and a rallying point for why that should happen.

We can argue the merits (actually de-merits) of tighter gun control measures, but now is not the time to do that.  We need to let the families mourn.  We need to let people heal, both physically and mentally.

Many years ago, the current mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, said that you should never let a tragedy go to waste.  In other words, use tragedies to your political advantage.  This is the unfortunate mindset of a lot of politicians today.  Do what you can to retain your office, even if it means taking advantage of other people's misfortunes.

But we do not need to make this a political battle.  The gunman did not care if the people that he shot were Republican or Democrat or Independent or Libertarian or Green Party.  He randomly shot people, not caring about political affiliations, or race, or gender, or anything else.  He had a complete and utter disdain for his fellowman.

The media today tries to link all news to politics - how will this help/hurt President Obama or Mitt Romney?  Well, many of the events that happen on a daily basis are outside the world of politics.  They have nothing to with politics, but we live in an age where the media attempt to link tragedies such as this to politics.  We need to understand that events like this happen, not because of politics, but because of the sin that we all have within us.

There will be a time in the future where we finally know what happened and why this man decided to shoot people at that movie theater.  And we will be able to hopefully have a rational discussion about how to keep this from happening again.

But will it require more legislation?  I doubt it.  It will only require us to be more vigilant in enforcing the current gun legislation that is already in place.

But this unfortunate tragedy happened in an election year and politicians are going to try to use this to their political advantage.  And that is unfortunate.  And sad.  And it only compounds the tragedy that happened early this morning.

Illegal Immigration - The Next Political Battlefield

In the ever-changing American political landscape, our politicians keep changing the 'Hot Button' issue.  It is frustrating, in that they never stay on a topic long enough to actually have a legitimate dialogue and public debate about that particular issue.  Instead, they would rather call people names, demagogue the issue, pass a resolution in Congress, and move on to the next thing - all in the hopes of finding a popular issue that will carry them to their re-election.

Over the past several years, we have seen many 'Hot Button' topics come and go, including: the 2000 Presidential election, Afghanistan, Iraq, WMD, National Security, 1st amendment rights (and the non-constitutional right to privacy), global warming, global climate change, bailouts, the economy, taxes, hope & change, and the list goes on and on.  The latest and greatest issue is that of illegal immigration and how we should deal with it.

Supporters of the pro-amnesty cause do not like to use the term "illegal" when referring to this particular group of people.  They will refer to these folks as immigrants (without the illegal moniker) or as undocumented workers.  They refer to those who want tighter immigration measures as racists or xenophobes.  They try to play to people's sympathies, because in a debate about the legalities, they have no leg to stand on.

Here is one of my problems with the whole amnesty thing.  We are a nation of laws.  If a nation chooses not to enforce some laws, then what moral authority do they have to enforce others?  Laws are to be enforced equally, on all people, at all times.  No man is to be above the law in this country.  In essence, these people are putting themselves above the law, trying to make the case that the laws do not apply to them.  However, this amnesty movement has become so brazen that not only do illegals gather in large groups to protest our laws, we have civil rights groups and the ACLU standing with them, protesting the nation's laws.

And these protests are not really that peaceful.  While they may not be full-fledged riots, these are people who obviously have no problem with lawlessness (since they are already breaking the law in being here illegally).  So they have no problem in tying up traffic and disrupting local businesses in order to try to get us to have sympathy for them. (Compare these illegal immigrant protests to Tea Party protests and see which ones are more civil).  Yet the establishment applauds these lawless gatherings, while demeaning peaceful Tea Party rallies.

We ought to understand that it is called illegal immigration for a reason.  We have immigration laws in this country.  These people are not following the laws in place.  Therefore, they are here illegally.  It is not very difficult to understand.  They say that this is a nation of immigrants and we should not be closing the door to immigration after all these years.  True, we are a nation of immigrants.  What they are not telling you is that we are a nation of legal immigrants who put emphasis on the rule of law.  There are millions of immigrants here legally who followed the rules and did things the right way.  If the government chooses to reward those who did not follow the rules, then we have slapped the face of those who are here legally.

Many illegal immigrants are here from Mexico.  The Mexican government is mad at us for attempting to enforce immigration laws.  Apparently, we are inhumane for trying to enforce laws.  But one thing we do not hear about are Mexico's immigration laws.  They put people in jail, fine them, deport them.  They will have nothing to do with people who are in their country illegally.  Yet, it is wrong for us to try to enforce our own laws by simply sending people back to their own country?

Also, this is a tremendous national security issue.  If people can easily cross over our southern border, then the door is open for terrorists to get into our country the same way.  The primary goal of the government is to protect the citizens who live under that government.  How can this government protect its citizens when they selectively enforce the laws of the land, not caring who has come across our borders?  Actually, by refusing to enforce immigration laws, they are endangering the citizens, not protecting them.

So, how do we deal with this?  It has been estimated that we have between 10-15 million people in this country illegally?  Can we send them all back to their home country and tell them to start over?  That would be great, but it will be hard to do.  How do we find them all?  How do we keep up with it, since others will inevitably come and take their place?  Does the federal government even care?

Arizona stepped up to the plate and decided that they would start to enforce the federal laws.  Immigration laws are only supposed to be enforced by federal agencies.  Arizona saw that the federal government was shirking their duties of upholding the law.  They want the laws enforced, and if the federal government is not going to do it, then they saw that their only option is to take care of it on their own.

Now, we have the typical liberals out there decrying this move by the state of Arizona.  Many are labelling them as racists.  The President calls them misguided.  Many liberals groups and politicians are lying about the bill, talking of the institutionalization of discrimination and profiling.

The federal government does not really want to do anything about this problem, because they are looking for any way possible to get re-elected.  If we keep them in this country, then surely we can find a way to get them to vote.  And if they find a way to vote, they are going to vote for the people who are letting them stay here.

The answer is simple.  We need to vote for people in the upcoming elections that want to enforce our immigration laws.  We need to hold our current leaders accountable for neglecting to enforce the existing laws.  We need to hold businesses accountable that knowingly hire illegal workers.  We need to tell our leaders that we expect them to do their Constitutional duty and protect this country.  And if they do not do this, then we ought to show them the door.

Three different, high profile murders.....but with similar motives

Within the past couple of weeks, our nation has had its attention turned to 3 different high profile murders, each of which has been committed by a different person, each of which had seemingly differing motives. However, all 3 of them have one thing in common: a built-up hatred for a certain group of people that drove them to commit the act of murder.

The first murder was that of Dr. George Tiller (aka Tiller the Killer). He was gunned down in a church by Scott Roeder. He was an abortion provider, specializing in late-term abortions, one of the few people in the country to offer this ‘service’. Tiller had aborted tens of thousands of innocent lives over his time in the abortion business. However, what Scott Roeder did was not right. It was not his position to take the life of another man. Though we may not like it, George Tiller was not breaking the law. Abortion is a legal activity, albeit a heinous act. Therefore, he could not have charges brought against him. To take justice into one’s own hand (i.e. vigilante justice) is just as bad as the sins that Tiller was committing. Tiller will be condemned to hell one day for the acts he committed. It is not up to other men to get him there sooner than his appointed time.

The second murder was that of Pvt. William Long, an Army recruiter. He was shot by Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad (aka Carlos Bledsoe), a Muslim convert who had issues against the U.S. Military. He was mad at how the U.S. had treated Muslims in the past, though not specifying exactly what it was the U.S. did to mistreat Muslims. He then took his own self-defined idea of justice into his own hands and shot at 2 men outside the recruiting center, killing one of them (Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was also wounded). He later went on to say that he would have shot more recruiters had there been more of them there to shoot.

The last murder happened at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. It was there that James VonBrunn shot Mr. Stephen Johns, a security guard at the museum. Mr. VonBrunn was a white supremacist who, by all accounts, was growing more bitter and distressed daily. He did not like Jews or blacks. He often railed against the government. He had been jailed many years ago for 6½ for attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Once again, we see that someone took his own idea of justice into his own hands and took the life of another person.

Now, what do these men have in common? On the surface, nothing. When you look deeper, you have 3 murders, committed by 3 different people who obviously had anger management issues. They were all consumed by a hatred for another group in society. They all decided that they were going to act as judge, jury, and executioner in order to make things right (in their own eyes).

The press has been quick to denounce the killing of Tiller and the killing of Johns, painting the killers as ‘right-wing extremists.’ Why do they do this? All of the right-to-life groups have come out and condemned Scott Roeder, as that is not how these groups operate. They are out to change the hearts and minds of people. They do not participate in murder, the same act that the abortionists commit daily. So why do they need to try to put a label on Roeder, especially one that does not really apply?

VonBrunn was a white supremacist, who hated Jews and blacks. He hated President Bush and the so-called neo-cons. He was a 9/11 conspiracy loon. These are many of the same ideas that a lot of the left-wing groups hold dear. So why is he being called a right-wing extremist?

The only one not really condemned by the media (or the President, for that matter) was the killing of Pvt. Long by a Muslim. I guess we do not want to make them mad. However, his pattern of thinking is similar to those who committed the atrocities of 9/11. This is a pervasive ideology and must be stopped. But we cannot do so by committing the same types of vigilante justice that this man committed.

Also, all three of these crimes were committed with guns. And because of the high-profile nature of these crimes, many politicians and gun-control groups are jumping on the soap box and pushing for tighter gun controls. So their answer is to take the guns away from people that obey the law so that the law-abiders can be free game for those who are not interested in adhering to the law.

Through all of this, we can see that the Administration and the media want to paint conservatives as some sort of extremist group (even though conservatives have repudiated all of these acts). The conservatives, in their minds, need to be controlled and suppressed. That is the administration’s goal. They do not like political competition, so this is their way of stomping it out. It is time we start using these despicable acts as political propaganda and call them what they are: acts of murder. Simply put, these are all men who took away the life of another man. Why? Because they were consumed with enough hatred to kill another person.

The administration and the media need to realize that very few things that happen around us take place through the prism of politics. Murder is murder. Hate is hate. We do not need more gun control measures or hate crime legislation. All crimes are committed out of hate, whether it is hate for the government, hate for another person, hate for another race of people. The administration wanted to bring people together. They are doing so by eliminating the competition, only leaving those who agree with them.

More Supreme Court thoughts....

Well, it has been a few days since Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to be the next Supreme Court Justice. What have we learned since then?

Well, we learned that the President and his administration think that no one should oppose her. I guess this is due to the fact that we are to do exactly as the President tells us to do. He knows all and see all; and, therefore, we should just fall in line.

We cannot oppose her. If we do, then we are anti-Hispanic, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-diabetes, anti-Obama. Basically, we are just a bunch of redneck bigots.

They like to tell us that she has a compelling life story, as if this was the first time this ever happened. This is not the case. I would like to urge you to read Clarence Thomas's book My Grandfather's Son. He had a very compelling life story, and look how he was treated, especially by the current V.P.

When the Democrats opposed Republican nominees, they never did so on grounds of character or judicial ability. They did so based on personal attacks and the fact that they were nominated by a Republican President. If the Democrats were so bent on minorities in judicial positions, then they would not have filibustered Miguel Estrada. They should have supported him simply because of his lineage. Now, they try to portray those against Sotomayor as racists? Is there a pot calling a kettle black somewhere? I am not quite sure what hypocrisy smells like, but I think this might be it.

I would like to see the best person be nominated to the Supreme Court. I do not want to see tokens on the court. If she is the best person for the job, then she should be there. If not, then she should not be there. It's that simple. However, I know it will not happen like this.

The Democrats do not need any Republicans to pass this nomination through, even though they will most likely pick up a few along the way. I would like to see Republicans, though, stand up for American and stand for what is right. They need to ask the serious kinds of questions that need to be asked of a nominee to the Supreme Court. Then we, as Americans, can judge whether or not this nominee is qualified.

Were Chrysler dealer closings politically motivated?

There is much speculation of impropriety about the way in which Chrysler and the government chose which dealers would be closed and which would remain open. What did they use as a basis for their decision?

For me, the obvious way to close down dealerships would be to get rid of the dealers that were not performing well and not making money. Then, I would look to consolidate dealerships in the same market. If more dealerships needed to be closed, then maybe you would decide by sales volume. there are many business-savvy ways to do this.

However, many bloggers are looking a little deeper into this to see if there was any political payback involved. Were dealers that made contributions to Democrats rewarded? Were dealers that made contributions to Republicans punished?

We should withhold judgment until the facts are out. However, given this administration's penchant for political bullying, I must say I would not be surprised if there was politics involved. This could possibly be a case study in Chicago-style, thug politics. We will have to wait and see how this transpires. But please, do not expect the mainstream media (which is the spokesgroup for the Administration) to do any vigorous research into this. They want it to pass quietly.

But let us remember what happened after President Bush fired a few of the U.S. Attorneys a couple years back. Everyone was outraged that this was a politically motivated act. In fact, there are still hearings going on about this (Karl Rove had a meeting concerning this issue last week). Why was this issue of firing U.S. Attorneys such a big deal, but the possibility of the Administration closing hundreds of dealerships based on politics OK?

The U.S. Attorneys serve serve at the pleasure of the President. It is his prerogative to keep them or let them go. There was nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about what happened to this small group of attorneys.

However, if the Administration is using politics as their basis for closing dealerships, then there is a tremendous problem. What it says is that you need to support us or we will put you out of business. In other words, "You need to pay in order to play" (just like the Illinois Senate seat that Rolland Burris sits in right now). These dealerships are not open for the pleasure of the President. These dealerships are open to serve the public. When the government starts to get involved and decide which businesses stay in business based on politics, then we have reached an awfully slippery slope. Where does it end?

What would have happened if President Bush tried something like this with any given industry? He would have been crucified for it, and rightfully so. Why, then, do we have a double standard when it comes to President Obama?

Now, there are going to be several hundreds of dealerships going out of business. many may stay open and continue selling used cars or remain in the auto repair business. But this is still going to lead to unemployment, affecting potentially thousands of people and families. This is sure to help the economy get better.

But don't worry. The President nominated someone to the Supreme Court who will have empathy for you..

Defeating Arlen Specter, Part II

Arlen Specter is now on a save-my-face tour, defending his vote for the President's stimulus bill. I am astounded at his patent disregard for the people that voted for him. As conservatives, we knew we could not consistently rely on a good vote from him, but he did come through occasionally.

Many in the Republican Party are ready to throw this turncoat overboard. No longer does he stand for the things that made the Republican Party great. He wants bigger government, greater government intervention in all aspects of our life, the right to an abortion, and to be the new maverick of the U.S. Senate. He wants to be the center of attention.

On Monday, Specter will be at the White House, meeting with the President and members of the Cabinet. According to Specter, "...it's very good for Pennsylvania that I have a seat at the table. No doubt, I consider each issue on its own merits. I don't trade votes. And if you're willing to think about things, if you have no commitment to ideology, you're in demand. People want to talk to you....I have a seat at the table. It's a hot seat." (note: emphasis added by me)

While I have nothing against meeting with the President or members of the other party, to do so in order to identify more closely with them and to compromise your own personal beliefs in order to win their affection is wrong. And while I might agree that it is good to take each issue on its own merits and not trade votes, the fact that he has no commitment to ideology is difficult to comprehend. Basically, what he is saying to me is that he does not really believe in anything. He will do whatever is politically expedient for his own benefit. Forget making decisions based on what is right and wrong, it is all a matter of what it will take to be re-elected.

Arlen Specter is not placing his votes in the Senate with the best-interests of the people of Pennsylvania in mind. He is voting based on political expediency. That is not what we need. We need someone who cares about the people of Pennsylvania, that will vote the way the people of Pennsylvania want him to vote.

If Specter is defeated in the primary, Republicans and conservatives may lose the Senate seat to a Democrat. After all, Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats to the tune of about 1.2 million people in PA. However, we will not really have lost anything since we have had a wannabe Democrat in the Senate for over 20 years. I will actively continue to help any Republican defeat this man.

Presidential advisors

Why is it that 8 years ago, when President Bush was putting together his staff and looking for people to serve in his cabinet, he was castigated for bringing back Washington insiders from past Republican administrations who engage in partisan politics and not progress?

Now that President-in-waiting Obama is bring in a bunch of old Clinton staffers he is considered brilliant for getting advisers that know how things work and know how to get things done? Where is the castigation by the media now?