Politics As I See It.

The race is on - and it's not four-legged critters such as in the usual horse races. Instead a much more important and costly race is on for the highest office in our land. Who will win - we all are anxious to know. We all hope it will be "our candidate." Many of those in influential circles such as the elite TV media believe they already know the answer. But do they? How will the deluge of Super PAC ads affect the outcome? Just how super are...super PAC's?

These Super PAC's of course are the private groups who organize and raise money in order to elect political candidates or to advance the outcome of, in this case, the 2012 Presidential race.

In past years I've always been a somewhat occasional observer of the political scene. Once in awhile while driving I'd catch a few minutes of one of the more popular daily talk-show hosts on the radio. And that would "catch me up" on the issues. Or, so I thought. But the issues are now changing so rapidly, I'm finding it takes more than an occasional hearing. And I have found myself not only glued to the radio but also to the internet to learn and research for myself what is happening to our great country.

And what I'm hearing and seeing is that the all-new-this-year-right-out-of-the-box Super PAC ads are daily being blasted across the airwaves. Their messages being not always made up of truth. Yet millions of dollars are being invested in them by everyone from the lowliest peon to the highest ranking CEO of the largest corporations, banks and investment firms. A lot is hanging on these major players called Super PAC's. But is all this money bringing in the results that is hoped for.

Well, up until a few days ago I thought it was an open playing field - with of course those with the most backing being more effective simply because of the volume power. But now I'm beginning to wonder if there is not other things happening. For instance"When Mitt Romney Came to Town" came out it hit the news and several main media sources were talking about how terrible and false it all was. Even the candidate that PAC was supporting suggested that if they could not substantiate their message they needed to pull it. The fact being, it definitely got media coverage.

I had seen the production and also most, I think, of the media's critique of it. And I thought, okay, we'll see what happens. So in a day or so I checked out the sources' site http://www.winningourfuture.com/ and there was an open letter to the "enemy" candidate stating their verification of the facts and offering to pull the ad - when they received verification of certain facts from the "enemy camp." Interestingly, I heard nothing more on the subject.

Then this same site came out with a shocking production relating the other candidate to a Medicare scandal - which I would think would grab the attention of nearly everyone in America. But, amazingly, that was not the case. You didn't hear anything about it on the news. Then this Super PAC's full "documentary" on the subject came out. You would surely think that would be the subject of debates and be on the lips of everyone. Especially since right on the same website they provided a bold link to the documentation for what is presented. But not so. I have watched and listened carefully and have heard nothing. Of course the numbers still grow slowly of those who watch on YouTube but is not the same. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVUQuJDEs04&feature=player_embedded

So, how super are the Super PAC's? I'm wondering if they are only as powerful as the TV media allows them to be. But then when I think about it, I must ask myself where exactly does all such power come from? It ultimately comes from God. All the money and all the talent invested in Super PAC's ultimately are in the hand of God to do with as He wills. The mighty King Nebuchadnezzar found that to be true; and after a season of great humiliation, proclaimed: "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth and none can stay his hand or say unto him, What doest thou? (Daniel 4:35).

Yet it doesn't end there. We have been given access to this Great Power through prayer. And as the saying goes, prayer changes things. Because our Great God hears our prayers. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availed much" (James 5:16-17). So if Elias, a man who was no different that we are could pray and affect whether or not it rained for 44 months - perhaps our prayers can effect greatly whether or not the truth gets out. Which ultimately it could effect the impact of even Super PAC ads - with or without the control of the media.
© 2012 Arleita Harmon (menofagape.com)

After Newt Gingrich rose in the polls, criticism of the former House speaker began grabbing headlines. But Republican establishment attacks on Newt are not new. Newt's political career has been devoted to mounting a conservative challenge to the establishment's desire to play the Washington power game of go along to get along.

As a junior congressman, Newt founded the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS), a group of activist members of Congress whose goal was to challenge the liberal welfare state but whose first target was the Republican establishment in the House of Representatives. The "old bulls" who dominated the party in the House had become quite comfortable in their minority status and saw little chance they would ever become a majority. Newt and the COS knew that, to create a true conservative agenda, the party needed to focus on becoming a majority. We used the House floor and C-SPAN to promote our ideas. We attacked spending bills and efforts to expand government, some of which the establishment had endorsed. It reacted by telling newly elected members to stay away from those COS guys because they are trouble.

Newt really stirred up establishment backlash by taking on then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) for ethics violations. The further Newt pushed his case against Wright, the more uncomfortable establishment leaders became. When Newt won, they leaned more toward agreeing with Wright's characterization of the result as "cannibalism" rather than seeing it as a victory for Republicans against an increasingly corrupt majority.

In 1989 Newt scored a stunning victory over the establishment candidate to win the job of Republican whip. It was a hard-fought battle decided by one vote. But that victory meant that the party was moving toward a conservative activist profile, shedding its passive minority attitude.

Newt really upset the establishment when he refused to go along with the tax increases that had been engineered in negotiations between Congress and the George H.W. Bush administration. Party leaders put him on the negotiating team in an effort to neutralize him. Instead, Newt made it clear that he would not accept tax increases and his message to President Bush was that tax increases would destroy his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. When the negotiations produced new taxes, Newt refused to sign on and led the Republican opposition to the settlement in the House. To this day, establishment figures harbor a grudge against Newt for not joining their "revenue enhancement" conspiracy.

When the 1994 election seemed likely to produce significant Republican gains in the House and Senate, it was Newt who engineered the Contract With America. He saw the need for a conservative governing document because he believed we would become a majority with the power to change the course of policy toward conservative values. Many of those values were spelled out in the contract, which included the legislation we intended to pass. Much of the establishment opposed the contract, believing it was too specific and would subject us to criticism that might cost us victories. The real story was the angst from the establishment about the conservative reforms evident in the contract. Most eventually signed on, only because many of them still believed we would never get a majority and therefore would not have to act on the contract's provisions.

When Newt became speaker, he was focused, disciplined and tough. He insisted on moving the Contract With America intact. He abolished committees and denied "old bulls" chairmanships. He insisted on using the majority to win conservative victories such as balancing budgets, achieving welfare reform and producing 11 million new jobs with tax cuts that spurred economic growth. He made some people unhappy when he pursued legislation that could win instead of pet bills that would have divided Republicans rather than uniting them. And he negotiated with a Democratic president to get the conservative legislation being passed signed into law. Some Republicans were left unhappy in the wake of all of that activity - some of them are still complaining today.

While Newt has been a part of the Washington scene for some time, he always has been the outsider challenging the establishment and insisting on reforms and transformation. He has been vilified, targeted with ethics complaints, subjected to lies and mythology. Millions of dollars have been spent on attacks against him. And he's still standing, offering America the kind of ideas and leadership it needs in the 21st century.

It boils down to this: Newt Gingrich is a conservative; the establishment prefers moderates. Newt prefers to stand up and debate conservative ideas and ideals; the establishment prefers to keep people guessing. Newt is a proven leader, someone with the background, understanding, vision and discipline to be our president; the establishment fears that he just might win.
© The Washington Post Company

Having come from the old-school of thought, that you are often known by the friends you keep, I have become intrigued with the candidate with the Libertarian background in our current Presidential election. He continues to draw such an abundance of what appears as strange followers, or "friends." So based on the old-school thought - what are the friends of this man telling me about him and what he stands for? Because based on the majority of comments I've seen from some of his followers, often with an ample mix of vile and misspelled words, it makes me wonder about it all. Yet I also have personal knowledge of people who have this same political persuasion-who in all practical senses appear to be very sane and civil. So this "friendly" mixture is a curiosity to me.

Then to all this I've had to add another strange fact. Some of these same sane and civil folk...who are also professing Christians. Very strange, because what I'm able to determine from the seemingly angry group is that they are definitely opposed to any form of government. No one is going to tell them what to do! So how does the Christians fit into this?

In checking out the Libertarian's beliefs a little further I found perhaps a strong hint of what is the drawing card for this angry group. There are three specific issues, actually. Two of which are also hot topics with the Liberal and Conservative groups - which of course are the issues of marriage and abortion. But the Libertarians have another one which is the legalization of drugs.

On marriage, their stance seems to be that any government involvement violates the separation of church and state because marriage is a set of religious ceremonies and regulations. Child custody, adoption, and other questions should be based on contracts privately determined, subject to natural law traditions.

Abortion, to the Libertarian is reported to be a difficult issue upon which reasonable, ethical people can disagree. They feel that until society can come to consensus about the status of the fetus, libertarians can reasonably be divided on their policy - but no government has a legitimate function to spend public funds either providing or prohibiting abortion. But the Candidate of this persuasion seems to believe that a fetus should have natural rights - and all human life should be safe from the invasive harm of others.

On the legalization of drugs-when I read their stance on it, I had to shake my head to make sure I was still in the real world. When asked how it would be possible to protect people from violence of gang warfare and drug wars after drugs are decriminalized, the answer astounded me. It went like this, when alcohol Prohibition ended, the gang wars ended, too. The Mafia focused on other illegal activities. Crime decreased dramatically so did the need for police. When we end drug Prohibition, we can expect the pushers to fade quietly away also. Drug wars will stop because they won't be worth winning. People won't need to steal to support their habit because legalization lowers prices. Just as with alcohol Prohibition, crime will decrease dramatically and so will the need for police.

On all areas they seem to be thinking that we all are still living in the Garden of Eden prior to Adam's fall.

Let's just consider: contracts privately determined and natural law traditions which they believe is the answer to the marriage issue. That would sound well and good I would think for uncivilized people. They can live with whomever, whenever. But what happens when there is personal property, real property, debts incurred-and worse-children. Who does the offended partner-and worse-children go to for protection or justice?

How about the thoughts that reasonable, ethical people can disagree on the issue of abortion? Or the one about all human life should be safe. In the first place, we don't always live even in families that are filled with reasonable, ethical people! People are unreasonable and unethical. So tell me how can all human life be safe from the harm of others. How can innocent, helpless fetuses, if you will, be safe without the laws of government?

Also, let's ask Mothers Against Drunk Driving how the end of Prohibition has made life so perfect. Imagine, adding freedom for everyone to do drugs as much as they want. The prisons are full in many cases of people who committed crimes while high on drugs. (And we won't even consider here the addicted, deformed and mentally disabled children born due to such addictions.) Are Libertarians suggesting the answer to everything is simply make everything legal?

I understand how the rancorous comments from some followers fit perfectly with the banner-of-self that Libertarian beliefs seem to promote. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how those who profess Christianity fit this picture. "The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God....For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil....he is the minister of God to thee for good....a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" Romans 13:1-5.

In my way of thinking, we'll continue to need laws and government as long as we have humans on the planet. So, as best I can determine, Libertarian beliefs can't fit in with what I believe as a Christian-but we still have the freedom to help shape our laws http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/ - and we should. ©2012 Arleita Harmon (menofagape.com)

It's been happening rather regularly. And I'm wondering if maybe others have noticed it as well.

As I've already mentioned I came from the old-school of thought and as such I often heard the saying, "clothes make the man (or woman)." So with that in my genes so to speak I often notice in detail what people wear-or don't wear. Often as well in looking through that grid, the question comes to mind, "what message are they consciously or unconsciously wanting to communicate by what they are wearing?"

Of course with such thinking being so engrained as to become nearly part of my DNA, without doubt what the Presidential candidates wear on the campaign trail has been of great interest to me. And because of all this one candidate who continually appears at speaking engagements dressed not in the expected suit and tie, but rather in jeans-has stood out-caught my attention-and raised some serious questions in my mind.

Now there may be some who may not have paid any attention. But I'm not the only one who thinks a person's choice of clothes is important. Author of several books on the subject of career planning, Dawn Rosenberg McKay, confirms that maybe it's unjust to judge a book by it's cover, but we all do it. It's human nature. While the person in jeans may be as competent and as intelligent as the one wearing the formal suit, or more so, we do assess these attributes based on appearance. And certainly, I would think, this would apply to one who is applying for the position of the highest office in the land.

So what's the big deal about speaking at important events dressed in jeans? As McKay says, in professional settings we assess a persons competence and intelligence based on appearance. I'm wondering if the flip-flopping stance this candidate has taken over numerous important issues is simply a reflection of his insecurity within. He says what he thinks someone wants to hear. He dresses like he thinks the crowd will want. He does not stand for issues because they are right, or dress in the correct way because it is right-regardless of whether or not a few may approve or disapprove. Instead he seems to always be second guessing what others want, even in his choice of dress.

If I remember correctly, our country started on its major downhill slide during the term of the president who chose to run around in his jogging sweats. Actually, I think you can tell quite a bit about a person by what they wear-maybe especially a politician.

Growing up as the only girl with several brothers taught me a lot about what's important when it comes to competitiveness. For instance, I might get my say when in a debate, but I knew when it was time to step back when any fighting took place. The same idea when it was time to build a treehouse or something difficult. I allowed them to get the credit for the hard part. I simply stepped in when it was all done and reaped the results. Afterall it was all my idea to begin with! So I wonder what young women today are thinking when they continually want to compete with men in dangerous type positions - such as in the military. Evidently they didn't have brothers to learn from.

Santorum today says about the issue relating to women serving on the front lines, he believes that the men serving with women would put the protection of women in their unit above the overall the mission. Of course this is counting on that these men have been taught that women and children are to be cared for and protected. We can only hope that is the case.

"So my concern is being in combat in that situation instead of being focused on the mission, they may be more concerned with protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position," Santorum said.

But Santorum says he is concerned about more than just the "emotional issues."

"You throw on top of that just simply physical strength and capability and you may be out there on a mission where it's you and a woman and if you're injured, the ability to transport that person back. And you know, there's just, there are physical limitations," Santorum said.

That said, Santorum acknowledged that women already serve in harm's way.

"Women have served and do serve and do wonderful things within the military and %u2026 they do have opportunities to serve in very dangerous positions," Santorum said. "I mean they serve in very dangerous positions. And I certainly understand that and respect that and admire women for doing so, but I think on the front line of combat is not the best place and its' not maximizing what they can bring to the table."

Now this is just common sense to me. But that usually doesn't even come into the picture. I'm sure it will be hashed and re-hashed because as I've said, it's politics!