Trump/Cruz: The Time is Now!

April 7, 2016

Since time began, humans have fallen for the pipe dream that one can get rich quickly. Oh, it happens but real wealth usually takes several generations. Even Trump who accumulated so much in his lifetime, had the advantage that few people enjoy. He had help with money and building experience from home.

Ted Cruz’s career has been equally successful especially considering the fact that he received little financial help from home and he has a father with no political experience or contacts. Cruz, with those disadvantages, received a Harvard education and rose to the position of a US Senator. Not bad!

Our current President has a similar track record but in addition to reaching the heights of being a US Senator, he went on after only one term to be President of the United States. Obama was a political phenomenon that may never be duplicated. Ted Cruz, in 2016, is attempting something nearly impossible.

Cruz at 45 years of age is 24 years younger than his primary opponent Donald Trump. Between them, they command approximately 75 % of Republican votes without even considering the draw that Trump has with working class Democrats. A joint effort should be considered to secure the nomination.

Based on age and world experience, Trump should lead the ticket. They could easily defeat Hillary or Bernie or whoever the Democrat Party might throw at them. With Trump’s appeal to the Tea Party and Reagan Democrats and Cruz’s appeal to the strict Conservative side, how could they possibly lose?

Assuming they would have a successful run of 8 years with Trump in the Oval Office, Cruz at 53 years old, would be in an ideal position to assume the Presidency for another 8 years. At the ripe old age of 61, Ted Cruz would be ready to retire from politics, build his library and do whatever ex-Presidents do.

But that scenario is difficult to see for a young man in a hurry. Many of my generation who spend most of our time looking back, understand this best.
Like great wealth, success in any line of work takes time. The Obamas
of this world are a fluke and the results of his tenure is validation of that fact.

The combined force of Cruz and Trump would undercut any effort the Establishment has of replacing both with a Rino . The candidates and their supporters would have to swallow hard in order for this to happen but they should know that it is best for both candidates, the Party and the Country.

William E Ryan

The New Tea Party

February 26, 2016

For several years now we heard from the media and indirectly from the Republican and Democrat Party establishments about the demise of the Tea Party. They told us that the wave of enthusiasm behind the Tea Party that we saw after the election of President Obama in 2008 had faded away and died because of the loss of interest and support.

Before there was a Tea Party there was a Silent Majority. In time, the Silent Majority / Tea Party splintered into factions, each with different leadership. No individual leader was successful in bringing all the Tea Party groups together in support of liberty, security, prosperity and the survival of the United States as a sovereign democratic republic.

All that has changed.. The arrival of Donald Trump on the political scene in 2015 is seen by long-suffering Tea Party supporters as the leader they have long sought. A wise and successful politician is one who recognizes the wants and needs of voters and assumes the mantel of leadership by adopting the issues and concerns of that contingency.

Among other things, Donald Trump is a wise politician. After a successful real estate career outside politics, Trump decided to do what he could to correct some or all the foolishness that he and the rest of the Tea Party loyalists saw going on in Washington. Having the means to run without support from special interests, he jumped into the fray.

Whether Donald Trump, at the onset of his campaign, recognized the broad voter base that was searching for a leader, we will never know. But Trump and the long suffering base of Tea Party voters soon found each other, to the dismay of the established media and the established Republican elites in DC. The voter base behind Trump is huge.

The voter base that made-up the Tea Party consisted of citizens from all political, ethnic and religious groups. And the voters you see at Trump rallies responding to Trump’s call is made up similarly. Citizens across the spectrum are responding to Trumps call to make government and the national media more responsive to the needs of all citizens.

As Donald Trump moves his campaign forward and continues to respond to the needs of the Tea Party base, that base will continue to grow. The Tea Party base is attracted to Trump’s non-partisan approach to solving problems and the base understands that partisanship between party elites is behind most of the problems in Washington, DC.

William E Ryan

United States vs US Government

February 12, 2016

Only when your favorite team wins a Super Bowl or a pennant do you have any feel for the euphoria that we Americans experienced when the US was victorious in WW2. We monday morning quarterbacks finally concede that our coaches may know what they are doing and the members of our team may be the best players in the league.

In August 1945, most Americans believed the US Government was infallible and could solve any problem that it may encounter. The war, from planning to execution, was conducted at a level of excellence never seen before . After to the war, problems that sould have been solved locally were referred to Washington, DC for solution.

Over the past 70 years, we have seen time and time again, that government can’t solve problems. In fact, most of the problems we have in our lives today are the result of government actions. Our industrial base, education, banking and even the military are controlled directly by big government and are losing or have lost their effectiveness.

So why the apparent inconsistency. In 1945, government was perceived as infallible and in 2016, the same government can’t seem to do anything right. Politicians haven’t changed, bureaucrats haven’t changed, The amount of money for any venture is far greater. How can we explain the apparent difference between then and now?

Franklin Roosevelt was president during most of WW2. Although he was a socialist on domestic matters, he was the right man at the right time when war with Germany and Japan was declared in 1941. The government was much smaller then but Roosevelt was able to accomplishment more with less than any president before or since.

Roosevelt hand picked the generals and admirals, told them to win the war and stepped aside. Roosevelt chose from private industry the best men/women available and put
them in charge of war production and every other aspect of the civilian war effort while the government, it’s politicians and bureaucrats were limited to processing invoices.

William S Knudsen, then president of General Motors, was appointed Chairman of the Office of Production Management, a member of the National Defense Advisory Commission and as Director of Production in the Office of the Under Secretary of War. In this capacity, he worked as a consultant and a troubleshooter for the War Department.

In both of these positions, Knudsen supervised the largest production job in history.
In response to the demand for war materiel, production of machine tools tripled. Total aircraft produced for the US military in 1939 was less than 3,000 planes. By the end of the war, America produced over 300,000 planes. As Knudsen said, “We won because we smothered the enemy in an avalanche of production, never dreamed possible.”

From Declaration of war to surrender, WW2 lasted 44 months, Dec 7, 1941 to Aug 14, 1945. Just the website for the Affordable Care Act took 43 months, March 23, 2010 when the act was signed into law to October 1, 2013 when was opened to the public. Anyone paying attention at the time knows that the website was not ready.

Many people, foreign and domestic, mistake the US Government for the US. The potential of the US is great but one of the limitations to its future greatness is the US Government itself. If we want to be a great nation again, we can’t continue to support an overweight, ineffective and obstructionist government that thinks it alone knows best.

William E Ryan

Football and Politics

July 10, 2015

Football vs Politics

In my youth I was a serious Green Bay Packer fan. When Lambeau field opened in 1957 as Green Bay City Stadium, my brother and I acquired season tickets. During the 1958 regular season the Packers won only one game. During the offseason,
the Packer organization was in danger of losing it’s franchise with the NFL

One of the conditions of keeping the franchise was accepting Vincent T Lombardi as head coach and general manager. Lombardi had a long winning record as a high school coach, college coach at West Point and as an assistant with the champion New York Giants. But Lombardi was a New Yorker and not very welcome in Green Bay.

To the delight of the fans, the Packers were in the NFL playoffs after the 1959 season. The difference between the success of the Packers during 1958 and the success of the Packers in 1959 was the head coach. It was a lesson to me in the importance of leadership. The Packers had the talent but needed Lomdardi’s leadership to win.

Football is no longer something that attracts my attention because somewhere during my life I discovered that winning and losing in sports has no consequence. I have focused instead on an area that has dire consequences i.e. politics. Politics is seen
as a game to many but to me it is the a matter of life or death for generations to come.

As head coach, Lombardi would not tolerate losing. He demanded fair play while emphasizing excellence. He never considered compromise or feared offending a another teams player or rabid fan. He was a winner and taught his players to win.
My political team today is the Republican Party and the enemy is the Democrat Party.

The Republican Party is the Green Bay Packers of 1958. They have some of the best players available but are waiting for the league or the voters to force upon them a coach with the will to win. Unless or until that leader is forced on them, the Republican
Party leadership will continue to participate in the game, draw their pay and lose.

Imagine if you can, Lombardi believing that losing a game is a victory because it won’t be an issue in the next game, as with gay marriage or the Confederate battle flag. Imagine if you can, Lombardi asking the league to decide the winner and loser of a game, as with ObamaCare (and act upset when the league decides against him).

Initially, Lombardi was not liked by Packer players but success soon changed that. In time, Lombardi earned the admiration of his players, the Packer fans and eventually the sports world. The Republican Party needs a leader. We don’t have to like him but we need him (or her) to help us be winners again for the sake of future generations.

William E Ryan

July 5, 2015

Young vs Not So Young

All my life i’ve heard again and again that long life brings wisdom and in many societies the elders are the leaders for just this reason. The statement, if true, suggests that young people are less wise or even foolish about most matters.
One of those matters important to the young is the election of our political leaders.

Our political leaders are determined through an election process and the elderly and the young participate with the most passion. The middle aged are too involved with family and work to spend much time on seemingly abstract matters. The young generally vote for the Left candidate and the elderly generally vote to the Right.

Since the GIs returned from WW2, there has been a false assumption in society that youth is greater than wisdom. When John Kennedy was elected president in 1960 and when the 26th amendment to the US Constitution was passed in 1971, the
door was opened for our national leaders to be elected by the young and foolish.

To complicate matters, the media are dominated by the young and their reporting of the news is influenced by their indoctrination in journalism schools and lack of life experience. When they report on important matters that all Americans need to know, their reporting has a lack of depth and basic and understanding of their subject.

On matters like the recent trade deal, we know almost nothing, we only know who in Washington supports it and who opposes it. This is the media’s definition of keeping us informed. We are told the unemployment rate is 5.3% and that 93 million are
out-of-work. Nobody explains that only those working or drawing UC are counted.

On immigration we hear that youths are crossing the border and our immigration laws need to be re-written. Nowhere is it clearly stated that our immigration laws are simply not being enforced. Media are aflutter with gay marriage without regard that
it is not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore is a matter for States to decide.

The only thing the media understand about ISIS is “no boots on the ground”. The internal conflict between Sunni and Shia escapes them and that Iran and Iraq are Shia and mortal enemies with most of the rest of the Middle East. Media, also fail
to understand that only they associate the Confederate flag with slavery.

Too much influence from the young in politics has resulted in a state of near-chaios. For the elders this situation creates a state of uncertainty by driving society away from institutions and values that have held us together all our lives. Our identity as Americans is being altered in support of the young persons dream of utopia.

William E Ryan

Charlie Hebdo v s Political Correctness

January 15, 2015

An alien from a distant galaxy stepping onto Earth for the first time would be stunned by the level of hypocrisy on display in the Western media and political Left. On the one hand, Charlie Hebdo is being praised for mocking various religions, cultures and institutions around the world and representing the rights of a free press.

On the other hand, free speech in most of the Western world is stifled by the muzzle of Political Correctness, enforced by powerful individuals on the Left of the political spectrum. The same voices in politics and in the media who enforce political correctness on everyone else, see Charlie Hebdo as the voice of Free Speech.

The human right described as Free Speech never implied that a person can say anything on any subject at any time. There have always been certain things that we shouldn”t say because it is inappropriate, ill-mannered, immoral or illegal. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater has long been understood as speech that is not free.

Other than Laws involving defamation of character or libel, there is no reason for any government to get involved in what we say or don’t say. It should be a question of what is right and what is wrong based on Christianity/Judaism. Mocking the beliefs of any religious group or culture is never the right thing to do.

There will always be those who mock and ridicule the beliefs of others and you don’t have to travel far to encounter them. Mockery and ridicule of those who mock and ridicule us is no excuse either. Mockery and ridicule will never result in anyone changing what they believe about politics, religion or even sports.

The Western media and the political Left believe that voices like Charlie Hebdo can say whatever they want when their voices represent the Left of the political spectrum. At the same time, voices on the Right are condemned by Western media and political Left for expressing views that are not consistent with the Left.

Western Media and the political Left in Europe and in the US is more afraid of the increasingly loud voice of the political Right than of radical Islam or terrorists in general. While radical Islam will never remove them from their positions of power and influence, emerging voices on the Right in Europe and the US eventually will.

And the Left knows it. The Left has had a good run over the past one hundred years but the unforeseen consequences of their programs have taken a damaging toll on the morals and the economies of Western civilization. The political Left can hear footsteps and is getting nervous. It’s time for good men and women to step forward.

William E Ryan

Kennedy Democrats

December 21, 2014

The question of the half-century has to be, “Why do so many voters see Liberal Democrat politicians as the solution to their problems?” From FDR to Johnson to Carter to Clinton to Obama, liberal Democrats have done little more than increase government spending and reduce the Liberty of the majority of American voters.

With the exception of FDR, the voters saw the error of their ways after seeing the unintended consequences of programs that sounded so good when first proposed. Liberal Democrats propose solutions to problems they create by spending even more money which in turn makes matters worse for the voter.

From time to time, voters seek asylum by electing Republicans and are almost always disappointed because Republicans are afraid to undo harmful programs for fear of a negative response from the main-street-media. With no improvement from Republicans, voters again entertain the false notion that liberalism works.

The pattern of political swing we saw over the last fifty years is getting severe. As the Democrat leadership moves to the Left, the Republican leadership follows but at a safe distance behind. But the Republican voters are moving to the Right and slowly replacing establishment Republicans at every election opportunity.

As a result, Republican leadership will eventually change to reflect the will of the new Republican voter. The big question is whether the Democrat voter will continue to follow the leader in its march to the Left or will the Democrat voter speak up against the Leftward movement and replace their Progressive leaders.

While it is evident that the Republican voter will eventually have his voice heard by the leadership, it is not so clear how the Democrat voter will react. There is little indication to this observer that the Democrat voter has any opinion other than that formulated by the leadership. None the less, I think change is on the way.

Without a change in direction by the Democrat Party leaders, those leaders will soon find themselves supported only by the hard-core Liberal and there are not enough of them to win any election. The great opportunity for some alert young politician is to lead the Democrat Party in the direction of Kennedy Democrats.

Liberal Democrats and Establishment Republicans have been very effective in gaining credibility before an election but ineffective in governing. Republican voters increasingly understand their leadership problem but Democrat voters demonstrate no comprehension that they’re being lead down a path to nowhere.

William E Ryan

December 14, 2014

Enhanced Interrogation:

Over the centuries, we learned that the world is a better place if civilian leaders have greater authority than military leaders. Although the arrangement is necessary, it is less than perfect. And it only works when the civilian leader accepts input from his military leaders before making a strategic decision.

Franklin Roosevelt is the shining example of how a leader should handle the military. He selected great military leaders and let them do the job. World War II lasted less than four and a half years and resulted in a massive and absolute victory for the United States and, in the long term, the rest of the world.

Since World War II, the United States has been engaged in several “wars” and none have resulted in anything other than a stalemate. Some say we should not have entered those wars and perhaps we shouldn’t have, but those decisions were made by civilian leaders, not the military who suffered the loses.

The mistake made by civilian leaders is getting involved in “wars” but not allowing the military to do what the military is trained to do, fight our nations wars and win. Civilian micromanagement of the military in Korea, VietNam, Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in stalemate and the loss of young lives.

This week the Democrats in the United States Senate issued a report on the subject of enhanced interrogation by the CIA during the days following the attack by terrorists on the United States on 9-11- 01. Various interrogation techniques were used on a small number of known terrorists leaders.

Some of the interrogation techniques are seen by some Senators as torture. Military leaderss see the techniques used as a necessary means to obtain needed information that could prevent another attack. But the Senators who
see it as torture are in the leadership positions and their views prevail.

Torture is never a good thing. In our various “wars” our opponents have tortured our military members. What separates sadistic torture from enhanced interrogation is what the person being tortured may know. It’s safe to assume an army private knows nothing but a senior officer should know something.

And gaining information from that senior officer can save lives and shorten the “war”. The job of civilian leaders is to decide if we engage troops in war and it is the militaries job to do what it has to do to win. When our civilian leaders learn this we will again have a strong Defense. If they can’t learn it, good luck.

Willian E Ryan

Gruber, a name or a noun

November 15, 2014

Gruber, a name or a noun

You’ve often heard the phrase, ” he keeps digging the hole deeper.” It, of course, refers to the guy who has gotten himself into a bit of trouble and when he tries to explain his way out of the trouble, the worse it gets for him. And he doesn’t stop with a little hole, he keeps talking and talking and with every word the “hole” gets deeper.

Currently in the news, at least on the Fox channel, is a character named Jonathan Gruber. As one of the writers of ObamaCare, he is in a position to know the back-story of the planning, writing and implementation of the Federal take-over of not only the medical industry but also the insurance business with respect to healthcare.

As a professor of economics at MIT, Gruber enjoys high regard among academics and some politicians and since ObamaCare has been implemented, he has been invited on numerous occasions to address fellow academics and interested parties to describe his observations made during the time ObamaCare was being drafted.

Just recently these observations were exposed in the form of videos. So far there are six and they are very damaging to those behind the unpopular healthcare/insurance program by disclosing the devious methods that were deliberately taken by them to deceive the American public into thinking ObamaCare was something it was not.

Mr Gruber is of German national origin. Like most european sur names, his name has origins that go back to an occupation or activity in which some fore-father was engaged. The noun eine grube, in German, means a deep hole or a grave and the noun der gruber means a hole digger or a grave digger. An interesting coincidence.

Much to the embarrassment of the backers of ObamaCare, the word gruber is being adopted by American English speakers as a verb describing a politician or others who attempts to accomplish a proposed objective by misrepresenting the facts because of a belief that the “stupid” listeners would otherwise reject the proposal.

Lack of transparency is credited by Gruber for the passage of the ObamaCare Act. That same lack of transparency, as practiced by politicians, media and academics is responsible for the “stupidity” of the American people as described by Gruber. Their lack of transparency has resulted in the US being a nation with too many low information voters.

William E Ryan