Great Nonprofit Organizations

Great Nonprofit Organizations 

As many of you know, I have worked with nonprofit organizations of all shapes and sizes over the past 40 years.  Some of these groups have multi-million dollar budgets, while others are quite small.  A number of these groups are in the animal welfare category, rescuing abused and neglected horses and donkeys as wells as lions and tigers.  Other groups raise funds to build or support world-class historic sites or museums.  Several of these organizations assist deployed American servicemen and women, as well as their families.  Still others, work to restore traditional American values, advocate for limited government, or actively pass along the Founders principles to the next generation of Americans.  It’s been a great pleasure and privilege to work with many, many fine groups and organizations.  I’ve learned much from them.

In addition to the clients served by my company, my wife, Kathi, and I have enjoyed our volunteer work with a number of nonprofit groups including Youth for Tomorrow New Life Foundation, Time of Grace Ministry, and Wisconsin Lutheran College.  It’s been very fulfilling to support such organizations and institutions.

Along the way, I’ve met some great leaders who have inspired me.  I’ve also met a few who have occasionally missed opportunities (as we all do).  These social entrepreneurs are critical to making our nation the land of caring and character that it is.  I like to think that they weave the fabric of our nation, making it richer, kinder, and gentler than it would otherwise be.

What makes a great nonprofit?  I believe that great nonprofits have the following characteristics.  This is not exhaustive, but I certainly believe these traits are essential to any great nonprofit organization.

1.     Vision.  Every great nonprofit organization is headed up by a visionary leader.  In their mind’s eye they envision great things being accomplished for the good of society.  These leaders are dreamers.  When we work for them, we see it as an opportunity to help them realize their dreams.

2.     Dedication.  Because these leaders see their dream as so important, they are singularly focused on achieving that dream.  They live modestly, and every one of them has sacrificed to turn their dreams into reality.  Their choice in life has been to serve, not to gain wealth or power or a life of ease, but rather to help do things that benefit all Americans.

3.     Focus.  They succeed because they are singularly focused on reaching their goals.  They are the kind of folks who won’t take no for an answer.  They simply find a way to get done what needs to be done.  They are not easily distracted from their mission.

4.     Team Player.  As contradictory as it may sound, the really great leaders are team players.  They don’t see themselves as having all the right ideas or brains.  They see other groups who are working toward the same or similar goals as fellow collaborators, not competitors.  To them, fulfilling the mission is far more important than their particular organization.  Accordingly, they foster and encourage others to work toward the goal and willingly collaborate with them.

5.     High Standards.  Great organizations led by great leaders have high standards.  They are completely honest in all transactions.  Their integrity is above reproach.  Because they take this route, they don’t burn bridges, they are trustworthy, and they earn a great reputation for integrity.

6.     Funding.  Organizational leaders know that in order to fulfill their goal and achieve their dreams, they must raise the funds to do so.  Great leaders take delight in talking with and meeting with donors and don’t hesitate to ask for their support.  They send out fund appeals that candidly and honestly state a strong case for supporting their cause.  They don’t view fund raising as a problem, but rather as an opportunity.

7.     Bias for Action.  While great leaders run a tight ship and are well organized, they have a bias for action.  Their organizations are flat and fast.  They push decision making to the lowest possible rung, and when an opportunity looms or a crisis occurs, they take immediate action.  It doesn’t make any difference what their size is, if the leadership has a bias for action, they can be counted on to get the job done fast when the need occurs.

8.     Accountability.  Strong and effective nonprofit leaders not only hold their employees accountable for bottom line success, they also hold themselves accountable by answering to boards of directors that include talented people that help them fulfill their mission. 

As I said, this is not an exhaustive list of the attributes of great nonprofit organizations, but I hope it gives you some idea of the type of folks and groups that are worthy of support.  Of course, I love working with such people because they inspire me with their sacrifice, dedication, and integrity.

The Old Bulls Don’t Like It

The Old Bulls Don’t Like It 

The old bulls never like it when they are replaced by young bulls.  Who would?  The old bulls I’m referring to are the current leaders of the Republican Party.  They like things just the way they are.  Karl Rove may not be chronically old, be he certainly epitomizes the “Old Bulls” of the Republican Party.  They call themselves conservatives, but they are far from it.  Karl even authored a biography titled, “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight,” and he labels himself as a conservative on FOX News. 

However, the real Karl Rove that I have known for many years revealed himself on FNC’s Hannity's America show this past Tuesday (September 14, 2010).  While I have spoken to Karl, I really don’t know him personally, but many years back I saw him in action as the leader of the “me-too” Republican forces at a Texas College Republican convention.  I was a delegate to that convention and it was the conservatives against the Karl Rove pragmatists.  To put it simply, Karl was always on the wrong side of every battle within the Republican Party when it came to liberals vs. conservatives.  Karl is a nice guy, but he’s no conservative.  He never will be.  He is the ultimate pragmatic, deal making Republican.  He’s of the go along to get along variety of Republicans.

Old Bulls like Karl Rove really dislike principled Republicans like Jim DeMint who can’t be bought.  They might say that the problem is that “you can’t do business with Jim.”  What they really mean is that he can’t be bought through committee assignments or pork barrel largesse – he can’t be controlled.

And right now the Old Bulls are scared and mad.  They endorsed and sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to “moderate” Republicans like Charlie Crist in Florida, Bob Bennett in Utah, Jane Norton in Colorado, Sue Lowden in Nevada, Trey Grayson in Kentucky, Mike Castle in Delaware, and Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, but thanks to Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund (www.senateconservatives.com) and Tea Party conservatives like Sarah Palin, all these go along to get along Republicans were defeated by principled conservatives. 

The Old Bulls, as epitomized by Karl Rove, have blown a gasket.  They are outraged that these upstart, can’t be bought conservatives are about to seize power in the Republican Party.  That’s why Karl Rove lost it on the Hannity’s America show.  He and the other Bulls just can’t stand the thought of men and women of uncompromising values taking over the Republican Party.  They believe these new Republicans just don’t get it.  They believe that a principled Republican can’t win.

They said exactly the same thing about Ronald Reagan when he ran for President.  They said we had to nominate a moderate Republican like Gerald Ford (1976) or George Bush ’41 (1980) in order to win.  They were wrong then and they are wrong now.  It was Ronald Reagan who carried 49 states when he ran for re-election against Walter Mondale in 1984.  That was, of course, after he cleaned Jimmy Carter’s clock in 1980, sweeping in with him a Republican majority in the US Senate.  The real lesson is that principled conservatives win and pragmatic Republicans (who raise taxes like Bush) lose.

Old Bulls like Karl Rove always say that conservatives can’t win.  That’s why they support Crist, Bennett, Norton, Lowden, Grayson, Murkowski and Castle.  In truth, it’s more than a pragmatic rationalization.  The fact is the Old Bulls are more comfortable dealing with establishment type Republicans.  They would rather be in the minority and get the best offices and the best parking spots, and the most prestigious committee appointments, the most earmarks, and all the other perks of being a princely Congressman or Senator than fight for principles.  They are, as Angelo M. Codevilla characterized them in his featured piece in the July/August 2010 issue of The American Spectator, members of “America’s Ruling Class.”  It absolutely infuriates them when they are upended by what they look upon as America’s “Country Class”—that’s you and me.

Just a day after Karl Rove lost control on Hannity’s America, Michelle Malkin appeared on the same show.  She summed up the situation nicely as outrage by the current leadership of the GOP that they are about to be ousted from power.  She characterized it as a “palace revolution.”  While the general election is a revolt against the statist policies of Barack Obama, the defeat of establishment Republican candidates by “Tea Party” conservatives is nearly as big a story.  The Republican Party bosses know their time has come and gone.  The party’s over and come November 2^nd there’s going to be a new sheriff in town, only this sheriff can’t be bought or “co-opted” as suggested by former Senator, now lobbyist, Trent Lott.

That’s why Karl Rove is willing and anxious for conservative Senate candidates like Christine O’Donnell to lose.  Up until the time of Rove’s emotional outburst the polls showed O’Donnell leading her Democrat opponent, Chris Coons, in the general election.  But just a day later, thanks to Karl Rove and attacks by other members of the GOP establishment, the polls have flipped showing her losing her race for US Senate in Delaware. 

Make no mistake about it, liberal Republicans believe in rule or ruin.  At first the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) leaked out word that it would not be providing any funds to Christine O’Donnell (NRSC Chairman Senator Cornyn reversed course the next day, probably due to intense pressure from Texas conservatives).  On the heels of that was the announcement by Mike Castle (who was defeated in the primary by O’Donnell) that he would not support O’Donnell in the general election even though he had pledged to do so if he lost only a few weeks earlier.  Then came the attempted political assassination by Karl Rove. 

But you and I can answer Karl Rove and all the Old Bulls of the GOP by going to Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund (www.senateconservatives.com) and lending our financial support to principled conservatives like Christine O’Donnell.  If we all jump on board it won’t take long for Christine O’Donnell to regain the lead in the polls and elect another conservative to the US Senate who can’t be bought.  I’ve already made my gift to help Marco Rubio (Florida), Sharron Angle (Nevada), Rand Paul (Kentucky), Mike Lee (Utah), Ken Buck (Colorado), Joe Miller (Alaska), Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), and Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania) via Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund.

I urge you to drop everything right now and click on www.senateconservatives.com  to elect principled conservatives to the US Senate who will fight for principle rather than make a deal.  Please lend your support to these citizen candidates today.

The Same Old John McCain

The Same Old John McCain

To the surprise of no one, John McCain was successfully nominated for a fifth term as United States Senator in Arizona.  When I heard that he spent $21 million to get re-nominated, I smiled and thought of a picture of his political soul mate, Nelson Rockefeller, which appeared in National Review after losing the 1964 California Presidential Primary to Barry Goldwater.  Rockefeller was wearing a “Rockefeller for President” button and the caption under the photo was, “Like it?  I bought it in California for $5 million.”  Of course, McCain won and Rockefeller lost, but it is truly amazing that McCain felt the need to spend such a big chunk of his wife’s fortune to defeat a weak candidate who nevertheless garnered slightly more than 30% of the vote.  Ironically, without the strong endorsement of Sarah Palin, his 2008 running mate, the vote would surely have been much closer. He might have had to spend $40 million.

         

I watched just a few remarks made by the Senator in his victory speech.  I really chuckled when he referred to his “principles.”  Which principles would those be?  Would it be the principle of opposing a fence along the border that was dropped in favor of building one?  Would it be the principle of granting amnesty to illegal aliens that was changed to opposing amnesty?  Would it be his principle of opposition to the Bush tax cuts that he switched to support for extending them?  Would it be his advocacy, even authorship, of cap and trade (read cap and tax) legislation with Senator Lieberman which was flopped over to opposition in order to get re-nominated?  Would it be his opposition to earmarks while at the same time scarfing up earmark money for Arizona?  Would it be his vocal opposition to the Supreme Court ruling against McCain-Feingold, which turned to silence during his primary race?  Would it be his Presidential campaign pledge to be a maverick and go across the aisle which changed to strong opposition in order to undercut his primary opponent?

In fairness, John McCain’s not much different than most of the Republicans and Democrats in Washington.  They only have one principle that is unbreakable—do anything, say anything, promise anything to get re-elected.  They think of themselves not as public servants, but as potentates.  They have special places to park, special places to eat, a special gym to use and in all circumstances they are deferred to as the ruling class.

This is what John McCain and his ilk are all about.  Power, prestige, and wealth (which he married into) are what give the Senator his personal significance.  Like many others in Washington, power, prestige and wealth serve as their counterfeit gods.

The main stream left was, of course, glad to hear that Senator McCain had been re-elected.  David Broder, the so-called “dean” of Washington, DC journalists wrote in The Washington Post on August 26:

“I did not begrudge him the $20 million he spent to win Tuesday's primary, or whatever amount it was.  Nor was I bothered by the doctrinal compromises the Senator made to convince Arizona voters that he was, in fact, a conservative.  McCain has always been a realist, doing what was necessary to survive a North Vietnamese prison camp or a tough political trap.  His 2000 embrace of George W. Bush -- a man he had every reason to dislike -- showed his practicality, and it made possible his own presidential nomination in 2008.”

About McCain and the GOP, Broder said:

“What it does need badly is adult leadership, and it's now incumbent on McCain to demonstrate that he is prepared to fulfill this role for both his party and his country.”

With more candor and less syrup, USA Today editorialized on the same day:

“To pass muster with this year’s angry GOP electorate, McCain—an incumbent with years of service, a record of accomplishment and bipartisan admiration—renounced much of what he has stood for in a valiant and remarkable career.

“Perhaps he will return to his maverick ways. We certainly hope so.”

It’s so nice to hear that David Broder and USA Today have the best interest of the Republican Party at heart.  Of course they would never support a winning Republican like Ronald Reagan.  They love “me too” Republicans like McCain.  Their formula never changes – fill up the GOP with RINOs so that their liberal agenda will prevail.

The liberal media is consistent, if boring.  They endorse liberal Republicans in the primaries, but, of course, they don’t support them in the general election.  Like Nelson Rockefeller and Hugh Scott and Chuck Percy before him, John McCain bends and compromises and crosses the aisle to help pass the liberal agenda that they love.  They play the music and he dances to the tune.  What’s not to love about a guy that supports your agenda and is no threat to win a national election?

But not all Republicans in the US Senate are like John McCain.  In fact, there are a number of reliable, principled conservatives in the Senate, men like Jim DeMint.  DeMint, who, along with a number of others, belong to a special class of Senators in Washington, DC who can’t be bought.  Speaking of those who can be bought, former Republican Senator Trent Lott, now a highly paid lobbyist, agonized over the possibility of principled conservatives being elected to the US Senate in an interview with The Washington Post:

“We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples.  As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

That’s the attitude of the ruling class toward the average American.  To the typical politician, getting elected is all important, and adhering to the principles of limited government as codified in the United States Constitution come in a distant second place.

God save us from unprincipled men (and women), regardless of the Party they represent.

Common Sense Government

Common Sense Government 

In an age where common sense is in scarce supply, especially among the political class in Washington, DC, it is more than refreshing to see what Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and the Republican-led House of Delegates have accomplished in the Old Dominion.

McDonnell inherited a huge budget shortfall caused by the irresponsible spending of his predecessor, Governor Tim Kaine, and his Democrat cohorts in the state legislature.  Just two years ago the Commonwealth’s budget hole was $4.2 billion.  That’s the mess that Governor McDonnell and his Republican team inherited.

Immediately upon the election of Bob McDonnell, The Washington Post (which, of course, supported a Tim Kaine clone, Creigh Deeds) intoned in a lead editorial that McDonnell would have to break his pledge of no new taxes.  It was, in the Post’s view, the only possible solution to the budget shortfall problem.  Big business leaders joined the Post in calling for new taxes.  That’s a lot of pressure on a new Governor and there’s no doubt about it, raising taxes would have been the easy way out.  But McDonnell and the conservative leadership in the state legislature did not take the easy way out.  They put the citizens of Virginia first, not the government first.

Last week the Commonwealth of Virginia closed fiscal 2010 with a budget surplus of nearly $400 million.  This is an amazing turnaround and a huge triumph for commonsense government.  Some may point out that it was the state legislature that really led the way and that user fees were imposed in several areas.  Even the Journal noted that it took a bit of creative accounting to balance the books.  Nevertheless, McDonnell led the way.  He inherited a nearly bankrupt state, but with the assistance and prodding of conservative leaders in the state legislature, put the brakes on spending, and thus put the financial house of Virginia in order. 

As a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I greatly appreciate such commonsense leadership.  It’s the kind of leadership that is desperately needed in Washington, DC.  Only a fool would believe that he can spend his way into prosperity. 

Stimulus spending is an intellectual fantasy of the left.  Where does the money that the government spends come from?  It comes from hard working Americans, that’s who.  Commonsense tells us that you can’t help Americans by spending their hard earned dollars on folly and foolishness.  You can’t help them by bailing out irresponsible leadership in states like California.  You can’t help them by bailing out state employee unions or by expanding government.

Out of control spending by Franklin Roosevelt exacerbated a Depression that was coming to an end in 1932.  Out of control spending by Barack Obama can turn a mild recession into a replay of the Great Depression.

Ronald Reagan proved once and for all that the only way out of a recession (and he inherited a beaut from Jimmy Carter) is to put more money back into the hands of the people.  It is only when you reduce the tax burden for all Americans, reduce the size of government, and cut government spending that you can expand prosperity. 

There’s an important lesson in this.  It’s a simple lesson.  Liberal Democrats like Tim Kaine and Barack Obama are spendthrifts who always raise taxes and expand government.  Conservative Republicans like Bob McDonnell and Ronald Reagan cut taxes and contract government.  The liberal path always leads to less freedom and economic misery.  The conservative path always leads to more freedom and greater prosperity for all.

Which path will America take in November?

So What’s New?

So What’s New?

          On Friday, August 13, 2010, President Barack Obama hosted an official White House dinner to celebrate the beginning of the Islamic holy month, Ramadan Kareem.  In the course of his remarks at the dinner, he said, “But let me be clear.  As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.  And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan…”  The Lower Manhattan he was referring to, of course, was a site near Ground Zero for the murderous attack by Islamic radicals on September 11, 2001.

Apparently the President was concerned about being sensitive to those of the Muslim faith.  And although he made a passing reference in his speech to those who lost loved ones on that tragic day, it appears that he was not as sensitive to their concerns as he was to those of Muslims in Manhattan, or the Saudis who are reportedly providing funds for the construction of the mosque.  Whether out of honest regret, or for more crass political reasons in an election year, the next day the President tried to backtrack from his comments.  Needless to say, such over-the-top comments were not well received by the vast majority of Americans.

His defenders have focused on “Freedom of Religion” as their defense, while those who strenuously oppose the construction of a mosque have called such construction a travesty.  It is, of course, just that, a travesty.  It is upside down logic to equate the construction of one mosque, or one church, or one synagogue in a particular location with abridgement of religion.  As has been pointed out, there are more than 100 mosques in New York.  It is not the addition of another mosque that mortifies New Yorkers and Americans across the nation, but the intent of these particular builders of a mosque, as this particular site, to intentionally rub salt in a very raw wound. 

But really, what’s new about this latest genuflect to radical Islam?  Shortly after taking office, this young President trotted off to the Middle East to apologize for the United States and to make nice.  He apologized to erstwhile Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin, and promised to hit the “reset” button on US Russian relations.  He warmly greeted the Communist oppressor, Hugo Chavez, and smiled as he was addressed as Comrade.

Nothing has really changed.  Liberals have always felt that if only the United States would be nice, if only we would be fair, if only we would appease and just talk, we could bring peace to the world.  Repeatedly they have exercised incredible naivety and flawed reasoning.  Why?  They make such misjudgments because they do not understand the fallen state of man.  They do not understand the flawed standing of human nature. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to the mass murderer Joseph Stalin as, “Good old Joe.”  The Roosevelt and Truman State Departments were riddled with men like Assistant Secretary of State, Alger Hiss, who was an active agent of the Soviet Union.  Just as Obama has trashed our friends like Israel, Truman’s State Department undermined our ally, Chiang Kai-shek, and instead made it possible for the mass murderer, Mao Tse-Tung, to take over China.  And let’s not forget that it was Jimmy Carter that singlehandedly destabilized the Middle East by cutting the ground out from under the pro-Western, pro-American Iranian Shah of Iran thereby putting the Ayatollah Khomeini into power.

Why have American liberal leaders from Roosevelt to Obama been so naïve in dealing with those whose goal it is to destroy the United States?  The answer can be summed up in two words—moral equivalence.  None of these leaders, with the possible exception of Harry Truman, believed that the United States of America was any better or in any way morally superior to any other nation on the face of the earth.  Their foreign policy was based on moral equivalence—the belief that the Soviet Union was morally equivalent to the United States of America, the belief that radical Islam is morally equivalent to Judaism and Christianity.

Obama sees the United States of America as an evil nation, a bad people, who have oppressed the poor and minorities.  At the very best, he does not see America as an exceptional nation, but rather just another nation, no better or worse than any other nation.  Liberals are and have always been embarrassed by American power and might.  They smirk at the idea that America and Americans are somehow a kinder or more generous people than any other nation. 

They reject American exceptionalism as jingoism and belittle those who express pride in America and our American heritage.  They would be embarrassed to wear an American flag lapel pin or to fly a flag in their yard.  They dismiss those who first came to America for religious freedom as being nothing more than empire builders.  They go out of their way to disregard the Founders as men and women who lived in the fear and reverence of God.  Or, as amazing as it may sound, they actually claim that their political linage goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, a man who personifies the antithesis of modern liberalism.

Because of their lack of understanding of human nature, they have never embraced the core belief of the Founders that men are mortals corrupted by having power over others.  They see no genius in a Constitution that has at its central belief that government must be limited in order to preserve freedom for all.  They see no threat in a powerful, centralized government. 

So what’s new?  Liberals of today are no different than the liberals of the 1920s and 1930s who sought to gain power over others by creating a leviathan government that has total control over the lives of its citizens.  They seek power because they see themselves as wiser, nobler, kinder, and better than others.  They have disdain for the “little” people and hatred for those who seek to preserve American values of freedom, limited government, and traditional Judeo-Christian moral values.

So why shouldn’t we expect Obama to bow to dictators and insult our allies?  What’s new and different about such behavior?  It may be more blatant, but such naivety is in keeping with the best traditions of modern American liberalism.

Tim Scott & Allen West: Antidote to False Charges of Racism

Tim Scott & Allen West:  Antidote to False Charges of Racism 

United States Attorney General Eric Holder says that “Americans are cowards” when it comes to honestly discussing race.  It’s not cowardice, General Holder, it is intimidation by the liberal news media and so-called political correctness that keeps Americans, both black and white, from discussing race issues in America honestly.  And you, sir, have little room for talk because you are the chief officer responsible for justice in America, yet you embrace openly racist policies.  You walk away from a judgment against baton wielding members of the New Black Panther Party who were recorded on video threatening and intimidating white voters in a Philadelphia precinct.  And other members of your Department have made it clear that there can only be white racism, not black racism.  What happened to equal justice under the law for all Americans, regardless of race?

For political reasons only, those who believe in smaller government and more individual freedom are labeled as racists by the media wing of the Democratic Party, i.e. the so called mainstream media.  The “Tea Party” in its various forms and mutations has, in political desperation, been labeled racist without any evidence whatsoever.  This outrageous and dangerous smear is used to divide Americans, not to bring them together.  It is used to create division, not harmony.  It is thrown about to create anger, rather than to encourage peace.  The goal is manipulation, not finding solutions to real problems.

It’s a sad commentary on the left wing radicals who control the Democratic Party that they are willing to resort to such dirty and despicable tactics just to maintain power.  It is a kind of corruption that is much worse than theft from the public till.  It is a corruption of the soul that relies on the self delusion that the end justifies the means.  There is only one purpose in such corruption and that purpose is the aggrandizement of more power.  Liberal politicians are left without any principles to stand on.

They charge racism to maintain power when in their heart they know that such racism as America has experienced in the past remains in the past.  Of course, there are pockets of racism in America.  After all, racism is a sin, just as wanting more power over the lives of others is a sin.  This is an imperfect world and you and I are imperfect, sinful human beings.  Corrupt humans cannot create a perfect, utopian society.  All previous efforts to create utopia by centralizing power into the hands of one individual or group of individuals have always turned into a murderous, tragic nightmare of human slavery.  All future efforts to create utopia will have the same outcome.

There is no group of people who are morally or ethically better than any other group of people.  All men and women are sinners from birth.  This is what the Founders understood and that’s why they created a government that limited the power of those who served in government.  They knew that a concentration of power in the hands of a few or in one such as a King always leads to despotism.  It is the one, enduring lesson of history.

Charges of racism now being leveled against conservatives have one cynical purpose, to derail the blossoming interest in limited Constitutional government.  They are not intellectually serious charges, they are not honest charges, they are just politically motivated charges. 

There is only one way to expose the lie of false racist charges and that is to elect men and women like Tim Scott and Allen West to Congress.  Tim Scott is a native of South Carolina.  In an open and fair Primary, this conservative black American defeated Paul Thurmond (son of the late Senator Strom Thurmond) and Carroll Campbell (son of former South Carolina Governor of the same name).  Tim Scott is not only a rock solid conservative who, along with tens of thousands of other black Americans, supports the Tea Party movement, but he is also a role model for other aspiring young black Americans to emulate.  He advocates limited, Constitutional government, lower taxes, the Second Amendment, and a strong national defense.  In short, his philosophy is in keeping with that of our American Founders.  Because Tim Scott has only token opposition in November, you will be able to count on the voice and leadership of this rising American conservative in the next Congress!

Allen West is another great antidote to the lie that conservatism equals racism.  Allen is running for Congress in Florida’s 22^nd District and he deserves your immediate support  (http://allenwestforcongress.com/ ).  I have already sent him a check and I hope that you will also.  He came close to being elected two years ago and this time, with our support, he will win.

Lieutenant Colonel Allen West (USA- Retired) was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia and is third of four generations of military servicemen in his family.  His parents instilled in him a very basic principle, love of God and Country.  Although he retired from active duty in 2004, he returned to Afghanistan in 2005 as an advisor to the Afghan army, an assignment which ended in November 2007.  Allen West received his Bachelors degree from University of Tennessee and his Masters degree from Kansas State University, both in political science.  He also holds a Master of Military Arts and Sciences from the US Army Command and General Staff Officer College.  He served in Operation Desert Storm and in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he was battalion commander for the Army's 4th Infantry Division.  Col. West has been honored many times, including receiving a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals (one with Valor), and a Valorous Unit Award.  He received his valor award as a Captain in Desert Shield/Storm.  He proudly wears the Army Master parachutist badge, Air Assault badge, Navy/Marine Corps parachutist insignia, Italian parachutist wings, and German proficiency badge (Bronze award). Allen and his family attend Community Christian Church in Tamarac, Florida.  His wife, Angela, holds an MBA and PhD. and works as a financial planner.

Like Tim Scott, Allen West understands and is committed to limited, Constitutional government.  It goes without saying that he believes in a strong national defense.

Tim Scott and Allen West are the antithesis of those who try to cynically pit one group of Americans against another.  They both cite the failure of the Great Society as a reason that black Americans should not trust the Democratic Party.  And they know that the politics of victimization serves only to empower politicians who fear the ascent of black Americans up the economic ladder.

Tim Scott and Allen West going to Congress is a good start, but it’s only a start.  Just imagine if we could elect 25 or even 35 solid black conservatives to Congress.  It can be done.  And when it is done you and I will destroy forever the myth that conservatism equals racism.  Not only would such success be politically beneficial, far more importantly, it would also be the right thing to do in order to bring racial harmony to our land and to end the politics of victimization which serve to hold back the economic advancement of black Americans.  I feel confident that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Patrick Henry would be delighted to see these descendents of slaves serve in the Congress of the United States. 

Let’s do all we can to encourage conservative black Americans to run for public office at all levels of government in order to create a better, greater United States of America.  Meanwhile, please help Tim Scott and Allen West create a permanent conservative black beachhead in Congress this year.  Such a beachhead will inspire other black conservatives to swell their numbers and bring an end to the cynical lie that conservatism equals racism. 

October Surprise?

October Surprise? 

As told today, the presidency of John F. Kennedy wasidyllic, and is often referred to as Camelot.  In truth, John Kennedy was not a popular President.  He had filled his administration withmore than 40 members of the very liberal Americansfor Democratic Action and had been unsuccessful in passing any significantlegislation, save his tax rate reduction bill, that proved effective instemming the tide of a mild recession.By late summer of 1962 it was evident that the Kennedy Administrationand the Democrats in general were in serious trouble.  A generic poll showed that the Republicans were more popularthan the Democrats and were in a position to make more than normal gains in thefall elections, possibly taking control of the United States House of Representatives.  And, as an aside, by the middle of 1963,a poll taken by Gallup or a similarly reputable polling firm showed that BarryGoldwater would beat President Kennedy in a head-to-head race for President in1964.  The Kennedy presidency wastragically cut short by an assassin’s bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald of thefar left Fair Play for Cuba Committee.  But I am getting ahead of my story.

In the summer of 1960 rumors from Miami's Cuban émigrécommunity of Soviet nuclear missile deployment on the island reached theKennedy Administration and important members of Congress, including New YorkSenator Kenneth Keating.  On August10, 1962, CIA Director John McCone sent a memo to President Kennedy expressinghis belief that sites for Soviet medium-range ballistic missiles were underconstruction in Cuba.  Still, many membersof the Kennedy Administration discounted the idea of nuclear missiles beingplaced in Cuba.  Senator Keating,who was a close friend of Director of Central Intelligence John McCone, pursuedthe matter diligently.  On August31, 1962, Senator Keating provided the United States Senate with photographicevidence that Soviet medium-range ballistic missiles were being installed inCuba.  But still the Administrationdeclined to acknowledge the threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba.

Instead of dealing with the problem when it would not haverequired a military confrontation with the Soviet Union on the high seas, Ibelieve that President Kennedy, along with his brother, Attorney General RobertKennedy, saw the issue as a political opportunity.  By showing resolve in the face of a crisis they believedthat they could rally the American people who were dismayed at the weakperformance of the young President at the June 1961 summit with Sovietdictator, Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna, Austria.  Earlier that year, in April of 1961, the Administration hadshown weakness and vacillation when a CIA planned and initiated invasion byCuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs failed after the United States withdrew itspromised air cover for the invasion.

The fall elections looked like a bloodbath for theDemocrats.  There was only onesolution, a bold October Surprise that showed the resolve and courage of theyoung President who had thus far disappointed the American people.  The Kennedys were tough politicians andthey were desperate to save their floundering presidency.  Whether their actions were noble andprudent, or political and dangerous, the result was the same.

The Cuban Missile Crisis saved the Kennedys and theDemocrats in the 1962 election.  Itrecreated the image of a decisive President with the backbone and courage tostand up to the Soviet Union.  Thenet result was a dramatic turnaround in the election results that secured astrong Democratic majority in Congress.

I remember the lead up to the Cuban Missile Crisis well andI fear that the current Obama Administration will in desperation resort to asimilar strategy to rescue the Democrats from a drubbing this comingNovember.  On Sunday, August 1, ourcurrent Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, told Meet the Press host David Gregory thatthe US military has a plan to attack Iran.  He indicated that this would be a last resort action, but hecertainly put it on the table. 

Admiral Mullen’s announcement eerily reminded me of August1962.  Is the current administrationdesperate enough and cynical enough to utilize an international crisis toaffect the outcome of the 2010 elections?What do you think?

Perhaps there is no discussion in the Administration of anOctober Surprise.  Perhaps theObama Administration is too noble to risk American lives in order to advancepolitically.  But remember thatRahm Emanuel has repeatedly advised the President to never “waste acrisis.”  Right now, today,conservatives need to start talking about a possible October Surprise in orderto dissuade the Administration of taking such a foolish action for politicalreasons.  It needs to be shoutedfrom the house tops and broadcast over the airwaves. 

The November election is far, far too important to bederailed by an October Surprise.