Recent Articles
Accepting Obama’s ‘Change’ Premise
Al Sadr’s Penchant for ‘Community Organizing’
Hey, Barack, Hillary Only Suspended Her Campaign
Ignoring
‘The Perfect Storm’ at Our Own Peril
The
Artificially Inflated Self-Esteem of Barack Obama
Click
here for more articles by Frank Salvato
About
Frank Salvato
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of
Terrorism Research for
BasicsProject.org a non-profit,
non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative. His
writing has been recognized by the US House International
Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict
Prevention. His organization partnered in producing the original
national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical
Islamist terrorism. He serves as the managing editor for The New
Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor
on FOX News Channel and is a regular guest on talk radio
including on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent
Radio Network and on The Captain's America Radio Show catering
to the US Armed Forces around the world. His opinion-editorials
have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The
Washington Times & Human Events and are syndicated nationally.
He is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is
available for public speaking engagements.
Click here to email
Frank Salvato |
|
 |

Frank Salvato
Managing Editor
Accepting Obama’s ‘Change’ Premise
August 29, 2008
Having established that "change” can be both good and bad, both
productive and destructive; I have come to the conclusion that Barack
Obama is right: our country is in great need of "change.” Now before you
God and gun clinging, fly-over state inhabiting political infidels lock
and load and take aim at the space between my eyes, I would ask that you
hear me out. There’s a good chance you will either like what I have to
say or find merit in my line of thinking.
Having dedicated myself to consuming the experience that was the 2008
Democrat National Convention, I did indeed come to the conclusion that
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the contingent that
descended upon the city of Denver had one thing correct, our nation is
in desperate need of change. We have allowed our political process to be
hijacked and in doing so have abdicated our right to expect good
government.
Whether organizational, corporate or ideological, special interest
groups have taken complete control over each and every one of our
governmental institutions. 527 groups, lobbyists and public action
committees – in conjunction with an agenda-driven mainstream media
derelict in its obligation to inform the American public of the facts –
have employed the manipulation of the truth and the allure of the
almighty dollar to persuade both citizen and elected official. The
environmental lobby has coerced the elected class to such an extent that
the mere mention of utilizing our own natural resources is met with
personal attacks and demonization. Corporations and their lobbyists have
abdicated any semblance of civic responsibility and national allegiance
in their quest for "the highest dividends possible for their investors,”
taking advantage of those who stand in their defense when criticized;
those who understand the benefits of responsible capitalism. And our
political system has been captured at it highest ranks in both major
parties by those who would slate candidates because of their "chances of
"winning” over candidates who stand up for principle, duty, honor and
country.
Indeed, Mr. Obama has hit on something that I can agree with him on, we
need change. As I see it we are in need of change in three specific
areas: 1) Our tolerance for the lack of truth from the media and the
politically opportune; 2) Our propensity for abandoning civic
responsibility; 3) Our need to re-establish a connection with the core
principles.
Our Tolerance for the Lack of Truth
Listening to the speakers at the 2008 Democrat National Convention, it
was easy to pick off the statements that were sincere and the ones that
were politically opportune. This task became even easier when listening
to the pundits and "prophets” of the mainstream media yawn and fawn over
that which was said. In the end, the statements recognized as
politically opportune grossly outnumbered the statements that were
sincere.
A perfect example of just how disingenuous our political and media
operatives have become comes in the form of the answers given to the
question of duplicity where primary campaign rhetoric is concerned.
Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are featured in John McCain ads
declaring that Barack Obama is too inexperienced for the job of
President of the United States. Clinton said that all Obama had for
experience was his keynote speech at the 2004 DNC and Biden referred to
Obama’s inexperience by declaring the job of president didn’t lend
itself to "on the job training.” Yet at the convention, both Clinton and
Obama gushed over how qualified Barack Obama is for the job.
When anchors and reporters queried the political punditry and the
elected class as to why Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden exhibited such
contrarian statements regarding Barack Obama’s experience and
electability their answers were to either justify their hypocrisy by
saying Republicans would do the same where McCain was concerned or they
simply chalked it up to "politics.” At no time did any of those
questioned have the courage to answer the question honestly. Such are
the cultural infidels with which whose opinions we concern ourselves.
Then there is the transparent and despicable agenda of our mainstream
media. From purposefully lying about McCain’s statements regarding the
longevity of US military forces in Iraq and cherry-picking statements
about how many "homes” he owns, to the actual reasons given for deposing
Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime in the first place, the mainstream
media is both so incredibly bias toward the Progressive-Left ideology
and subservient to the ratings game that divining any information of
worth from their wares is virtually impossible. To clarify:
▪ McCain referenced the existence of US military operatives in Germany,
Japan and South Korea after each related conflict and said he could
imagine the same for Iraq...not a hundred year war, a presence in
conjunction with an alliance.
▪ McCain wanted to make sure he was accurate in his answer to the number
of properties his family owns because there is a foundation involved
that includes investment properties.
▪ The first and most serious reason given for toppling Saddam Hussein’s
tyranny was the genocide of the Iraqi Kurds, not the existence of
"stockpiles of WMD.” In fact, in President Bush’s September 12, 2002
speech before the UN General Assembly there is no mention of
"stockpiles,” rather he alluded to the development systems in place for
WMD. It was, in fact, the media and the politically opportune who
re-invented the reasoning as being "stockpiles of WMD.”
Taking into consideration these few examples, it is clear that We the
People have become uninterested in the quest for truth. In our apathy we
have allowed out governmental system to be corrupted by privateers,
opportunists and thieves.
We need to change this.
Our Propensity for Abandoning Civic Responsibility
While we like to pretend that we all care about our country, our
everyday actions prove the majority of Americans would put themselves
before country, themselves before community. It is because we are
apathetic to our responsibility to be good citizens that our country
suffers at the hands of the aforementioned privateers, opportunists and
thieves.
The Founders and Framers created the Charters of Freedom with the idea
that each and every US Citizen would understand their ownership of those
documents and their responsibility to protect and guard those documents
– in essence, government – from the tyranny of wicked. It was for this
reason that they created a system that empowered the citizenry, then the
states and then the federal government. The power, our Founders and
Framers intended, was to be with the people, then the states and then –
and only then – the federal government. Face it, the Constitution begins
with "We the People, in order to form a more perfect union...” not "We
the Government, in order to establish a more perfect union...”
In our abdication of governmental oversight, in our tolerance to our
elected officials and media presenting untruths and semi-truths as facts
and realities, in the absence of our disdain for the narcissism of
special interests, we are the ones responsible for the state of our
nation, not the privateers or special interests, not the opportunistic
elected class; we are responsible for the state of our country.
We need to change this.
Re-Establishing a Connection with the Core Principles
In listening to the intellectual pabulum emanating from the 2008 DNC I
was struck with the notion that next week, in Minneapolis, I may just be
subjected to more of the same only from another vantage point. In all
honesty – and that is what is demanded here – we are going to hear the
same quality of overblown celebratory rhetoric from people who, it can
be argued, are just as politically opportunistic as their counterparts
on the Left.
This prospect led me to agree with pollster Frank Luntz, when he opined
that John McCain should dispense with his acceptance speech and,
instead, initiate an impromptu town hall meeting in an effort to
dispense with the status quo by embracing realism. He should truly
strive to be the leader of a nation of people, of constituents, not the
leader of a nation constituted exclusively of political partisans.
The notion of quid pro quo also led me to examine the founding platform
of the Republican Party, the platform of the 1860 convention. Then it
occurred to me, if the Republican Party wants to appeal to real
Americans, true Americans, if they want to adhere to their founding
principles, then they have to shed the special interest issues from the
national platform.
Many among the Conservative movement will take issue with this idea but
the fact remains, if the Republican Party wants to adhere to the two
most notable tenets of its original (read founding) platform – limited
government and limited taxation – then they must shift from enlisting
government to legislate special interest provisions and start engaging
their communities in order to shape the consensus regarding these
issues, a consensus agreed upon without governmental interference.
Community engagement and education on the issues using facts must become
the vehicle for change and catalyst for a renewed civic responsibility.
As it stands now, Republicans are just as guilty of acquiescing to the
expansion and encroachment of government into our individual lives as
are the Democrats. Because of this, the American people are,
increasingly, seeing little difference between the two political
parties.
Republicans must make a change in the way they approach politics and
government. They must strike out on a bold new initiative to
re-establish themselves as a party of good government over politics in
embracing the platform that encompassed their founding principles:
▪ Civic Virtue and Engagement
▪ Individual Responsibility
▪ Adherence to the Charters of Freedom
▪ States Rights
▪ Economic Responsibility
▪ Limited Taxation
▪ The Sovereignty of Personal Property
▪ Sound Immigration Policy
▪ Dedication to the Country’s Infrastructure
▪ Opposition to Discrimination
▪ Opposition to Aristocracy
▪ Opposition to Corruption
In rededicating themselves to their core principles they can effectively
embrace all avenues of society under the ideological big tent that holds
these tenets as sacrosanct. In establishing these tenets, exclusively,
the Republican Party can become inclusive to all avenues of thought
simply by encouraging the notion of civic virtue and engagement and
individual responsibility. By encouraging the individual to affect
change through community engagement rather than through legislative
mandate while securing the right of the individual to do so the
Republican Party can rise as the phoenix from the ashes of their
disgraceful 2006 election defeat to a position of strength and
integrity.
Change for the benefit of the politically opportune or the ideologue or
the privateer is change that can only benefit the few. Change, if done
for the benefit of the country’s well-being can only benefit us all.
|
|