Anthony Dolpies's Open Salon Blog

An Almost Impeachable Phrase?

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:03:15 -0400

Individuals following politics very intensely find few outrageous things a politician may says leaving them slack jawed. When it does happen, usually a result of some outrageous claim or platitude. Obama does this more than most, but nothing he's said before has left my mouth so gaping as when he told Brett Baier of Fox News, that he doesn’t care about the process by which legislation is passed.

Despite what our esteemed executive believes process is extremely important. The President, trying to be political slick, sought to distance himself from what has been an overtly messy & corrupt attempt at passing the democrat health care bill. This is extremely curious, this president seems to be extremely concerned with just every other process than the one he has any real authority over. Whether it’s the way Americans buy health care, the way auto manufacturers build their cars, the way banks make loans and how loans are repaid or even the process by which the executive or industry dujore he seeks to demonize gets paid.

Admitting his disregard of the legislative process he inadvertently connected himself directly to it. But before we get into that lets look at why process is so important, not just in government but in all things.

Most of my adult working life has been spent in auto sales, about fifteen years primarily between two different dealerships which, polar opposites when it comes to process. The first was run by two Russian immigrants, at first this was inspiring to me, the most visible partner, meaning the one who was always at the dealership was not more than ten years older than I at the time and in his early thirties a senior partner in a major Philadelphia dealership. It was soon very apparent that this gentleman was only interested in a quick buck and was more concerned with driving new Lamborghini’s on the dealerships credit than he was with how business was being conducted in the showroom. The result was a free-for-all, the dealership soon began having various legal problems as a result of dirty dealing and it’s franchise license was eventually revoked. The younger partner (Serge) split the scene back to Russia and left the more honest partner holding the bag. Serge did not care about process, the ends justified the means.

My next example is of a dealership where process mattered, a family owned dealership that has been around for about 80 years, still run by the same family. One of the partners who name is on the dealership, still works the service department dressed in a mechanics jumpsuit, making sure customers are properly attended to he even makes keys for them. This honest ethic is enforced in every area of the business from the showroom to accounting etc. The result is a dealership with an excellent reputation, which pays off in tough economic times. Everyone benefits from this principled executive leadership. The Presidents statement exposes his deficiencies as a result of inexperience in the private sector. Not every executive or industry seeks to rip off their customers, in fact most do not.

When the president admits he does not care about the process by which legislation gets passed, he admits that he is incapable or disinterested in providing principled leadership. The constitution provides us with a process by which our elected representatives are to govern, When you look at the presidents oath of office one could argue that providing principled leadership is probably his most important job. When Obama says he is not worried about the process the result is the overtly corrupt circus which is on display within our government. The President recently said that passing his health care plan is referendum on Americas character. This again is a curious statement coming from a man who has all but admitted that as far as he is concerned the ends is justified by any means. This is not the character of the United States and consequently why so many Americans have rejected his vision.

Anthony D Dolpies

Statement of Principle Part 1

Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:03:20 -0500

As I said thi is only part 1 so enjoy there are many more to come. And please forgive the eye, I live in the deep inner city and was assualted by a group of thugs.

Sinking The Moral High Ground

Sat, 6 Feb 2010 22:02:38 -0500

While speaking at the 2010 national prayer breakfast, President Obama invoking health care proclaimed; that “we may disagree about the best way to reform our health care system, but surely we can agree that no one ought to go broke when they get sick in the richest nation on earth.” This statement was meant to be another of the Presidents’ toothpaste ad platitudes. (Nine out of ten dentists agree) But it actually exposed his extreme adherence to the Marxist ideology which has created such a chasm between the American people and himself.

It is certainly true that the majority of Americans have no interest in seeing innocent individuals struggle, financially or otherwise. Our nature however dictates that those struggles are a part of the human experience, and it is that very nature that limits our ability to address these struggles. I don’t know anyone who wants to see people go broke for any reason, but the question is, at what and who’s expense? It is for this reason that Obama tries to wrap his agenda in a cloak of moral superiority. But there is nothing moral about forcibly limiting the individual’s ability to provide for himself and his family for the sake of political expediency.

Obama suggests that we have this “moral” obligation as a result of being “the richest nation on the face of the earth.” This is an extremely ideological statement from a man who just days earlier declared that he is not an ideologue. While it is true that The United States is the home of a fourth of the world’s wealth, President Obama implies that this wealth belongs to the state. Our current deficits show that nothing is farther from the truth. The nation’s wealth in fact resides with its private citizens. It is extremely laudable for an individual to freely commit a portion of his wealth to the service of others, but there is however no moral obligation to do so. Finally, politicians seeking to use the iron fist of government to coerce the individual into the service of others or some dictated high virtue is not morality, it is tyranny.

Anthony D Dolpies

The Mind-set of Malcontents

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:11:56 -0500

Every Obama speech seems to be constructed with one objective in mind, to reinforce the mind-set of the malcontent. Whether the venue is foreign or domestic he portrays an image of a world filled with injustice, populated with hapless inhabitants biding their time until some evil force devours them, with their only salvation being some international bureaucrat or government program that will fulfill their basic needs and change the course of an unjust human history selflessly guiding it toward some far off unreachable utopia.

Obama subscribes to the zero sum philosophy, or at least that’s what he preaches, this is the theory that an individual or a nation can only advance their own interest or add to their wealth by denying those things to another. On the domestic level this philosophy suggests that if a corporation or employer is allowed to keep more of its earnings through low taxation somehow the employee’s wages suffer. Or that one individual’s economic hardship is the direct result of another individual’s success, in other words he presents an image of an ever shrinking communal pie. Promising the malcontent a bigger piece in return for a vote or support of some liberty stealing legislation that will level the playing field and foster a better “equality” among citizens.

Globally the same concept applies. One nation’s prosperity impedes the ability of another to achieve the same. Obama advanced this theory in his speech to the U.N. then repeated it during his recent Shanghai town hall, he proclaimed “power in the 21st century is no longer a zero-sum game; one country's success need not come at the expense of another.” Obama’s idea to correct this perceived injustice is the same as his answer to domestic issues, global wealth redistribution and intergovernmental regulations tasked with insuring economic balance.

Power or economic success has never been a zero sum game. The idea is absurd, power goes hand in hand with a strong economy, economic success depends on many factors, navigable waterways and geography, political stability, government policies, cultural factors, human beings in general have the same basic potentials but a nation’s success can never be guaranteed. It is also important to realize that countries like China and India have grown economically after pulling back their governments involvement in the marketplace, Obama suggests just the opposite, while global wealth redistribution has proven as much of a failure as its domestic cousin. Look at Africa, GDP has decreased as economic aid to the continent has reached unprecedented levels. Finally the industrial revolution did not just benefit the U.S. it advanced nearly all of civilization, the nations that lag behind did so as a result of cultural barriers and political instability, the industrial revolution was not the cause of those instabilities.

In reality Obama seeks the same globally as he does domestically a population of victimized serfs in permanent economic stagnation dependent on an elite political class that holds out the carrot of unattainable utopia in exchange for individual liberty.

Anthony D Dolpies

The Big Tent Theory

Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:11:25 -0500

The congressional election in NY, where liberal Republican, DeDe Scozzafava was forced to bow out to conservative candidate Doug Hoffman, has prompted political pundits, mostly on the left, too once again advance the big tent theory.

What exactly is the big tent theory? It is the notion usually advanced by Democrats and John McCain types that Republicans must forsake their conservative foundational principles, and embrace far left progressive candidates in order to be a viable party. And of course establishment beltway Republicans like Michael Steele buy into this argument hook, line and sinker. Steele constantly feels the need to play down the conservative base as they begin to define the direction of the party and assure the liberal media that Republicans embrace diversity, he allows his opponents to set the terms of the debate.

But what does it mean to be a diverse party? Does it mean that in the interest of said “diversity” Republicans should nominate candidates who would go to Washington and join the opposition on important legislation? What is the sense of even existing as a political party if you have such lax requirements regarding first principles? How would you ever differentiate yourself from the opposition? None expects to agree on everything, the role of government has been debated in this country since the founding, but if Republicans want to hold themselves up as a truly viable party then they must not be afraid to heartily embrace some basic principles. Namely individual liberties as defined in the bill of rights, limited representative government, property rights, low taxation, sound money, sound borders, equal opportunity through hard work and self determination and of course free market principles. These are not just conservative principles, they are America’s founding principles, there is no bigger tent! When properly articulated these principles are a proven strategy for electoral victory. Those who would try to reinvent the wheel or seek to embrace progressive policies have only thrown in the towel, and accepted the idea of diminishing liberty and the ever expanding administrative state.

While it is true that voters who refer to themselves as Republicans is at a low point, those voters however are not flocking to the Democrats, If that where they case why would democrats have to fight so hard in these elections? The fact of the matter is that Americans are rejecting the modern pressure group framework of progressive politics, The American people will no longer accept having to choose between the lesser of two evils, The American people have awoken to the fact that there can be no choice between liberty and the incremental destruction of that liberty as offered by so-called moderates who would compromise first principles for political expediency.

Anthony D Dolpies